RIAA Sued For Fraud, Abuse, & "Sham Litigation"

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "It's been a rough week for the RIAA as massive layoffs are about to cost many employees their job. On top of that, the anti-piracy outfit is being sued in North Carolina for abusing the legal system in its war on piracy, particularly for civil conspiracy, deceptive trade practices, trespassing and computer fraud in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Moursy. Named along with the record companies as defendants on the counterclaims are Safenet (formerly known as MediaSentry) and the RIAA. This case first started out as 'LaFace Records v. Does 1-38' until the court required the RIAA to break it up into 38 separate cases, at which point it morphed into 'SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Doe.' Only after the RIAA finally got its 'expedited' discovery did it become SONY v. Moursy. And from the looks of things, it has a long, long way to go. The RIAA hasn't even filed its answer to the counterclaims yet, but is making a motion to dismiss them on the grounds of legal insufficiency. Sound like a good investment of record company resources, anyone?"

Comments

Couldn't have happened to nicer people

[gavron]

Thanks for staying on top of it, Ray!!!

Ehud

Re:Couldn't have happened to nicer people

[gravos]

I'd really like seeing them push the angle about their corporate attempts at controlling world art and culture, turning it into the bland, government approved, Pepsi and MTV generation and focus group designed, placid american/teen idol bands, and flooding us with that insipid product over controlled media.

That's really what the RIAA's fight is about, controlling the media, itself, and thereby the content on it, which is used to market false images and idols rather than any real talent that could inspire, consol or rally.

They're giving up the court battle only because they realize now it's cheaper, and entirely possible if not probable, to buy off the medium itself, once again, by having the willing ISPs in their pockets.

Re:Couldn't have happened to nicer people

[kheldan]

You took the words right out of my mouth, with that subject line. Seriously.
The RIAA has been swaggering around like they're Jack Bauer for years now, with all the self-justification that goes along with the reference, but instead of chasing terrorists, or even true "criminals" (copyright violation is really a civil law matter, not a criminal law matter), they're chasing down little kids, moms or grandmas who don't even know what BitTorrent or P2P is, let alone consciously making a decision to use it (kids or grandkids in this case), etc.; if they were chasing down Russian mobsters selling knock-off CDs to fund their other illegal activities then I can see some of it, but they're NOT. Even most of the artists they're claiming to protect don't want much of anything to do with them! It's about time the RIAA legal machine was dismantled, and the pieces destroyed, preferably with fire. They're a relic of a time and a business model whose usefulness and relevance has long since past; it's time for the music industry to stop being in denial about it, embrace the fact that downloading of music is a reality, a genie that can't be put back into it's bottle, and stop beating a dead horse.

Oh, and memo to the music industry: Please start backing and producing music that doesn't suck, k? We're sick to death of the crap you've been turning out lately.

Re:Couldn't have happened to nicer people

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Now THIS is the kind of stuff I like to hear!!! Thanks for the update Ray!!!

In my book the real thanks go to these guys, who took on this case, for the sake of principle, and have been doing a first-rate job ever since. They've taken about 15 penniless college students under their wings, and have really taken the fight to the RIAA. Lawyers like Steve Robertson and the Robertson Medlin firm bring honor to my profession.

Re:Couldn't have happened to nicer people

[Bob54321]

Yeah, these guys are heroes. The MPAA should organise a movie to be made about them.

Re:Couldn't have happened to nicer people

[rhizome]

I'd really like seeing them push the angle about their corporate attempts at controlling world art and culture, turning it into the bland, government approved, Pepsi and MTV generation and focus group designed, placid american/teen idol bands, and flooding us with that insipid product over controlled media.

Yeah, um...good luck with that one.

That's really what the RIAA's fight is about, controlling the media, itself, and thereby the content on it, which is used to market false images and idols rather than any real talent that could inspire, consol or rally.

Is that a bible-thump I hear, way in the background? False idols?

Here's another angle to consider: the companies that comprise the RIAA do not care about the content. They would just as soon sell you backwards recordings of Niels Bohr lectures as they would a solid hour of Robin Williams going "durrrr" if it made money. What the RIAA is concerned with is distribution and licensing of whatever it is that is being produced. That's it, the content is entirely secondary and merely a vehicle for acquiring dollars.

Re:Couldn't have happened to nicer people

[causality]

Is that a bible-thump I hear, way in the background? False idols?

I'm not sure what the GP intended by that concept, but I can tell you what it means to me. "Idolatry", when separated from all of the religious language (not such an easy task...) has a very simple meaning. It just means giving undue importance to something, or making a big deal out of nothing. To make up an example that I hope illustrates the point, consider a completely obsessed sports fan who knows the entire lineup of every football team by heart and watches every single game while his wife is neglected and starved for attention. Now, in the proper "order of things", his wife should be more important to him than the antics of professional athletes, for one represents love and commitment while the other represents entertainment. In this case, the man has made an idol out of football, even though he's not bowing down and worshipping anyone or anything.

Now consider the way marketing is done. There always has to be a big deal made of something that, most of the time, is really not very important or significant. It's always LATEST, FASTEST, GREATEST and there always has to be some kind of excitement attached to it. It's seldom "hey, maybe people will like this" and instead it's BEST THING EVER, BUY RIGHT NOW!!!! Few things that are marketed this way are essential to life and few of them would naturally inspire this sort of passion or enthusiasm; thus it is entirely artificial. There are only so many hours in a day, so someone who buys into the artificial hype would have to do so at the expense of something else that could have been given emphasis instead.

Here's another angle to consider: the companies that comprise the RIAA do not care about the content. They would just as soon sell you backwards recordings of Niels Bohr lectures as they would a solid hour of Robin Williams going "durrrr" if it made money. What the RIAA is concerned with is distribution and licensing of whatever it is that is being produced. That's it, the content is entirely secondary and merely a vehicle for acquiring dollars.

True, except that there is one concern about content that impacts the RIAAs of the world, which is the lowering of standards of excellence. If the public thinks something is crap, then it won't sell. Get the public conditioned to accept mostly crap and you can then sell more and more of your products without concern about the relative rarity of true excellence or the higher production costs that it might demand (due to taking more time to produce, if nothing else). Think of most of the popular music that is promoted by the RIAA, how little of it has any lasting or enduring value, how much of it does not require a ton of musical talent to write or to perform, and how the lyrical content is mostly immature prattle with no deep spiritual meanings and no ability to challenge its audience to think in new ways.

The advantages for the RIAA are that such musicians are plentiful. When a one-hit wonder or a mediocre band gets old and stops selling very well, there are thousands more ready and eager to take its place, waiting for their turn in the spotlight. The perceived advantge for the public is an inexhaustible supply of "new" music (though much of it is formulaic) so they can quickly move on to something else when they have depleted the entertainment value of their current favorites, which won't take long. From a commercial perspective, superficial entertainment with little or no lasting value is quite desirable. It moves product. All of this depends on a general public that, as a whole, is not too discerning and doesn't have specific, refined, individual tastes. If the RIAA knows anything, they know their market. What they choose to promote and not promote is no accident. So in that manner, they do care about content and from their perspective, they'd be crazy not to.

Re:Couldn't have happened to nicer people

[arminw]

.....Think of most of the popular music that is promoted by the RIAA, how little of it has any lasting or enduring value, how much of it does not require a ton of musical talent to write or to perform, and how the lyrical content is mostly immature prattle with no deep spiritual meanings and no ability to challenge its audience to think in new ways. ...

What you ascribe to the RIAA is really a part of our modern Western culture, where nothing lasts very long. It really began when the production of material goods went from one or two at a time in a skilled craftsman's shop to large factories cranking out mountains of identical merchandise. The individual craftsmen's touch on a pair of shoes or a piece of furniture was lost. Modern technology has made it possible for anyone to mass produce art and music in a similar way. Copyright laws must exist only if human creativity, especially in music and literature, is perceived as a commercial product to be bought and sold like any other product. Musicians created their music and painters created their paintings long before anyone had ever thought of copyright. They were content and delighted in having their fellow human beings partake in and be included in the joy of creativity of their art. People with means who enjoyed the art who were not so gifted, took care of the physical needs of these highly gifted ones. These creative artists could put all the effort and creative joy into their work without worrying about where their next bowl of soup was coming from.

A number of years ago I visited the walled medieval city of Rothenburg in Germany. The quaint little modern shops, located in the centuries old buildings, sold modern goods. One of these was a pharmacy, which had a sign above the door that it had been such since 1497. I entered, and indeed it had much of the same merchandise at any pharmacy in Germany might have. However, in a section occupying about a quarter of the store, they had made a little museum of what the store was like and what was offered for sale to the inhabitants of the town at that time. All their potions were individually tailored by a weight to each customer.

Re:Couldn't have happened to nicer people

[causality]

What you ascribe to the RIAA is really a part of our modern Western culture, where nothing lasts very long. It really began when the production of material goods went from one or two at a time in a skilled craftsman's shop to large factories cranking out mountains of identical merchandise. The individual craftsmen's touch on a pair of shoes or a piece of furniture was lost. Modern technology has made it possible for anyone to mass produce art and music in a similar way. Copyright laws must exist only if human creativity, especially in music and literature, is perceived as a commercial product to be bought and sold like any other product. Musicians created their music and painters created their paintings long before anyone had ever thought of copyright. They were content and delighted in having their fellow human beings partake in and be included in the joy of creativity of their art. People with means who enjoyed the art who were not so gifted, took care of the physical needs of these highly gifted ones. These creative artists could put all the effort and creative joy into their work without worrying about where their next bowl of soup was coming from.

I would say that in the past, skilled craft was essential because there was no other way to produce durable, useful goods. Now we have factories and mass production and economies of scale to take care of our material needs. The mistake we have made is that we act now like everything is a product and that craftsmanship or artistry have become more obsolete.

What we could do instead is decide that we have raised our material standard of living to where we can now apply craftsmanship and art to higher expressions of our humanity rather than mundane material survival. An economy based on scarcity (as opposed to what is called a resource economy) and a monetary system based entirely on debt (fiat currency, the Federal Reserve and similar systems that the same international bankers have implemented in every industrialized country) and therefore unsustainable are the main reasons why this has been held back. If we can overcome these things, we would find that we stand at the brink of a new Renaissance far greater than anything that has been imagined before. That is our current challenge.

I agree very much with Bill Hicks when he said that the reason why things are so fucked up right now is that we are undergoing evolution. Hicks went on to say that our institutions are crumbling because they are no longer relevant. Much of the abuses (in my opinion) perpetrated by the RIAA and others have been about these institutions trying to use force, typically the force of law, to remain relevant. I think they are merely prolonging the inevitable. This is a tough time because the old control-and-manipulation-and-coercion based ways of keeping order have to give way first before something new and better can replace them. The unrest and dissatisfaction that is so prevalent right now is part of this process. The one thing that is certain is that our current system is not sustainable. It absolutely must and will either radically change or cause its own collapse. I think something much better is coming that will be based on true love and respect and appreciation for ourselves and each other, for the simple reason that we've tried almost everything else and everything else doesn't work.

Re:Couldn't have happened to nicer people

[rts008]

The only real pirates, other than the ones from Somalia, are the RIAA lawyers, who are engaged in a racket akin to extortion.

LOL!
I can dress up like a RIAA lawyer next 'talk like a pirate day'! But where to find a vulture to ride on my shoulder? (to replace the standard parrot for 'normal' pirates)

Back on topic:

FIRST AMENDED ANSWER, DEFENSES,
              COUNTERCLAIM, AND
          THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

[the linked pdf from your blog]

Reading the pdf, it sounds like the Defense is coming out fighting, eyes blazing. I hope they actually have a good case(from the judge's perspective), and the RIAA have unwittingly grabbed a pissed-off tiger by the tail.

W/Regards to layoffs:

[GreenEggsAndSpam]

Before anybody starts in on the "Yay, less employees!" style rant, please remember that there are GOOD people who work at bad companies... not everyone is an evil backstabbing conniving shrew with the goal of proving that everyone is evil and owes them billions of dollars.

Of course, I have no proof of this "decent people" there, but one can only assume there would be.

Re:W/Regards to layoffs:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, wait. The Nuremberg defense is "I was under orders" - it's used when you actually DID something bad YOURSELF. Merely working for someone who also does bad things is not bad in itself unless and until you yourself do bad things.

Take Osama's chauffeur, for example, who was kept for years (and probably still is) in our lovely concentration camp at Gitmo. What did he actually do, other than being connected to/working for a genuine bad guy?

Of course, working for a bad guy isn't really something you SHOULD do, but if you do it anyway, it's not something that should be legally actionable. You are responsible for your OWN actions, not anyone else's. (And in fact, the fact that you ARE responsible for your own actions is precisely why the Nuremberg defense is not considered valid by most.)

Re:W/Regards to layoffs:

[causality]

Before anybody starts in on the "Yay, less employees!" style rant, please remember that there are GOOD people who work at bad companies... not everyone is an evil backstabbing conniving shrew with the goal of proving that everyone is evil and owes them billions of dollars.

Of course, I have no proof of this "decent people" there, but one can only assume there would be.

This is why many religions have an idea called "right livelihood". The Buddhists are very good at using sensible terms with simple descriptions and so I borrow their term here, but it's a recurring theme appearing in many belief systems. It goes by different names but the concept is that part of having integrity involves earning your living in an honest way that causes as little harm as possible, whether that harm is intentional on your part or incidental.

I know I could not in good conscience work for the RIAA. I could not see the harm and the human suffering and persecution that they perpetrate and join up with them without having a lot of inner conflict. Most of that conflict wouldn't even be a conscious thing. It would manifest in terms of a general dissatisfaction, of the vacuous sort that "you need more stuff, latest fastest greatest" rampant consumerism is designed to fill. It would be the opposite of being strong and needing very little and having a joyous satisfaction with life that comes from trying as much as possible to live in harmony with other beings. It would cost me my principles and therefore my well-being, not in a catastrophic sense but in a subtle corrupting double-minded sense. When I say double-minded, I mean that sensation that one part of you is for something while another part of you is against that something. It's become common, but that is not at all normal and is properly regarded as a disease (or "dis-ease") state.

I'm not advocating a religion or a religious belief. I'm saying that sometimes concepts become incorporated into these beliefs for what you might call practical reasons. It's unfortunate that religion has become such a divisive tool for control but I think that for most of them, this was later added onto the original beliefs and observations to make them into "systems". Most of them started out as sincere efforts to experience true health and joy on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels. You can see that if you can perform the not-so-easy task of unravelling and getting past the practitioners who know little about their own beliefs, the needlessly complex religious language, and the institutionalization and systematization of what are supposed to be personal beliefs. For most religions, I think the early founders would be quite horrified to see what their ideas have become, not unlike how the Founding Fathers would feel about the monstrosity that our federal government has become. In both cases, that does not mean that the original ideas were unsound, it means that the ideas become monsters when they turn into systems and demand that people conform to and become subservient to those systems. This process is in direct opposition to the idea that a belief is a tool or a helper that is there to give you ideas to consider, test, and accept or reject as part of your own personal quest to decide for yourself what you believe. The idea of "right livelihood" is one that I was thankfully able to test by observing other people instead of having to make my own mistakes and I have found it to be a sound idea.

Re:W/Regards to layoffs:

[roguetrick]

You're like the asshole who complains about all the innocent contractors on the Death Star!

Re:W/Regards to layoffs:

[Tassach]

There are no good people working at bad companies. They chose to work there. Even the "it was the only job I could get" defense is complete bullshit. You ALWAYS have a choice, even if you don't like the alternatives you have to chose from.

After I got laid off the last time, I got a VERY lucrative offer from an extremely scummy company that did data mining and direct marketing. After a long discussion with my wife, I turned it down, even though there was a very real chance that doing so would have meant losing my house. Fortunately something else came along, but it was scary there for a while.

Re:W/Regards to layoffs:

[causality]

Take Osama's chauffeur, for example, who was kept for years (and probably still is) in our lovely concentration camp at Gitmo. What did he actually do, other than being connected to/working for a genuine bad guy?

Which is pretty funny considering that Osama bin Laden's brother, Sheikh Tarek bin Laden, and his construction company have very close ties to the Bush family, including of course former Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush. In fact the more research you do, the more both the "good guys" and the villians seem to all be one big happy family. They are all connected to each other and either know each other or know each other's immediate families. Anyone else think it's just a little, I dunno, odd, that the media hasn't made this common knowledge? I mean, you'd think that'd be newsworthy considering the utter trivia that's tirelessly discussed about other celebrities and public figures.

By the same standard that was good enough to indefinitely detain somebody without charging them with any crime, a certain former President should be at Gitmo, too. That's if we're going to invest so heavily in guilt by association. Intentional or otherwise, we Americans certainly haven't lost our sense of irony.

To quote NOFX...

[scubamage]

The dinosaurs will slowly die

And I do believe no one will cry

I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be

There to watch the fall

Prehistoric music industry

Three feet in la brea tar

Extinction never felt so good

Re:To quote NOFX...

[Cousin Scuzzy]

Absolutely. How are large record companies even useful nowadays? It used to be that it was expensive to record and reproduce music, and distribution involved getting physical product out on shelves. Since shelves = floor space = rent, stores had to move as much product as possible, so there was value in having the music they were selling promoted by big companies with a lot of advertising money and a stranglehold on commercial radio.

The landscape has changed dramatically over the last decade. Recording is so cheap that it can be done reasonably well with equipment costing a few thousand dollars or less. That means it's pretty much accessible to everyone. For $10/month you can sign up with a digital music distributor who will put your mp3s on Amazon.com, itunes, etc. Set up a myspace page for your band or register a domain and get an inexpensive web host and you've got a web presence. It's up to you to get your music heard and purchased, but when you do you'll get most or all of the proceeds.

Seriously, what has the music industry given us lately except bland, pretty pop stars with little musical talent?

Re:To quote NOFX...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

How are large record companies even useful nowadays?

Well they provide quite a bit of employment to some otherwise unemployable lawyers. Doesn't that count for something.

Re:FUCK ARTISTS

[scubamage]

I live with artists, and I will gladly pay for worthwhile music. That means the guys I see in bars. That means the guys I see at concerts. You think we treat artists like slaves? You realize that to this day not a single filesharing case settlement has actually been shared with a SINGLE recording artist? The artists are slaves, but not to us. Fuck the RIAA.

RIAA guilty of promoting copyright infringment?

[tinkerghost]

• Music isn't sold it's licensed
• minors cannot enter into a licensing agreement
• replaying of digital music - downloads or CD - require copying of data to a buffer
• Using a legitimate copy of digital media is a violation of copyright if there is a lack of a valid license.

All music sold to and played by minors results in technical copyright violations. Since the RIAA heavily promotes music sales to minors, they are guilty of inducing copyright infringement.

This could be fun.

Re:RIAA guilty of promoting copyright infringment?

[seeker_1us]

• Music isn't sold it's licensed

No that is not correct. You buy a CD like you buy a book. You only need a "license" if the copyright holder has to give you a limited subset of his or her limited monopoly on copying/distribution. You buy the CD, you do not need any of the copying/distribution rights that are reserved to the copyright holder.

I don't know where this idea that music is "licensed" comes from. Sometimes I think the RIAA is spreading this to make us believe we don't really own the CD's we bought.

Re:W/Regards to layoffs: - Godwin's Law

[db32]

There were a lot of good people that were Nazi soldiers too. That doesn't make it any less of a good thing that their team lost and they lost their jobs.

Re:Do they have a lawyer fund..

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I couldn't find a link or any information to go about it in the article; Do you know any details about how we can show support?

Sure, send these guys a check with instructions to apply it to Ms. Moursy's case!

Re:This just in!

[causality]

I don't quite get why people got so mightly pleased when they hear that someone of whom they don't approve now gets to spend a bunch of money to deal with the fact they just got sued.

Because if this lawsuit is successful, it could help to end a long series of persecution and, in my personal opinion, abuse of the legal system (IANAL). This is a good thing. There are solid principles involved here that have nothing to do with personal feelings of "approval".

It's simple. There are times when wrong things go on. There are times when the legal system has a good chance of correcting those wrong things. This is one of those times.

Because your neighbor could sue you for the fact that your hubcaps are too shiny, and the reflections aren't being properly stopped by their tinfoil hat. And you'd still have to hire a lawyer.

If that bore any resemblance to "ending persecution and abuse" then I would see your point. It doesn't, so I don't. Frivolous lawsuits do happen. All frivolous lawsuits are lawsuits; this does not mean that all lawsuits are frivolous. I mean no offense, but please tell me that I have misunderstood what you were getting at, that you in fact are not advocating a position with such a glaring and easily addressed flaw. It's quite easy and tempting to feel "jaded" about our legal system and this will cloud your reasoning if you allow it, but it doesn't have to be that way.