RIAA Countersued Under Racketeering Laws

Negadin writes "According to CNET News, a New Jersey woman, one of the hundreds of people accused of copyright infringement by the Recording Industry Association of America, has countersued the big record labels, charging them with extortion and violations of the federal antiracketeering act." The woman's attornies are arguing that "...by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime."

Probably won't stick

[steve's nose is blee (636466)]

It probably won't stick, but Bravo! I'm tired of watching the RIAA offer to settle with people regardless of guilt. By agreeing to settle many people look guilty and add fuel to the RIAA's fires.

Stick it to the Man!

Re:Probably won't stick

[Bingo Foo (179380)]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's pretty likely that the p2p users the RIAA chose to sue were actually violating the law. You can't possibly think that suing less than a fraction of a percent of p2p abusing copyright violators somehow makes more people look guilty than actually are?

After writing that, I realized that I can probably agree completely with the plaintiffs in this RICO suit, but I will get called all kinds of names for calling your sorry post an overreaction.

Re:Probably won't stick

[wo1verin3 (473094)]

>>I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that
>>it's pretty likely that the p2p users the RIAA
>>chose to sue were actually violating the law.

I wouldn't jump very hard on that limb...

Do you remember the grandmother who thought Kazaa was the name of a clown [mtv.com], or Ross Plank who was accused of downloading Spanish language songs but doesn't speak spanish? [wired.com].

Didn't work against directv

[djtack (545324)]

Well, this has been tried before [slashdot.org] against directv (they were suing people who had purchased smart card readers). The judge (in Texas IIRC) ruled that speech related to litigation was protected, and not racketeering.

I doubt this suit will fare much better.

Analogous to Lemelson / Mitsubishi case?

[Nakito (702386)]

This sounds similar to the approach taken by Mitsubishi regarding the Lemelson machine vision patents. I believe Mitsubishi argued that the Lemelson foundation had deliberately embarked on a practice of bringing weak patent claims nationwide because it knew that most defendants could not afford protracted litigation, and then would "settle" by requiring each defendant to purchase a license that cost less than the cost of defense. So virtually every defendant was forced to settle even though they believed the patents had no merit (and, ultimately, those patents were invalidated). My recollection is that the RICO claim did not work, but I am sure that counsel in the RIAA case has review the arguments pretty carefully.

Extorsion, coersion, blackmail...

[gui_tarzan2000 (625775)]

... sounds like a good plot for an episode of "The Sopranos"!

Re:Extorsion, coersion, blackmail...

[Takara (711260)]

Conversation after the RIAA cornered one of the newly sued.

RIAA: You really would let me sue you, you sick fuck.
College Kid: You ever hear of casettes? People have been downloading music for decades. The Industry tried to take advantage of people back then, and where are they now?
RIAA: You're looking at them, asshole.

Start a Trend

[36526542DD (456961)]

Now if everyone who got sued by the RIAA counter-sued with similar charges, you'd see these lawsuits go away entirely, for two reasons:

1) The RIAA can't stand up to intense public scrutiny, without shooting themselves (and their industry) in the foot.

2) Being sued by over 1,000 people becomes cost prohibitive very quickly, particularly considering it will be in 100's of different courtrooms spread across America.

I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but I say good for her.

Re:Start a Trend

[santos_douglas (633335)]

That's a great point. In fact, the quick settlement of the early suits not only emboldened the RIAA, but in the eyes of the general population it probably seemed like a signal that the RIAA was right all along and those nasty song swappers settled quick because they knew they were wrong. Legally a settlement is neutral, but in the eyes of the public, it says guilty for someone. With someone fighting back, suddenly it starts to turn the other way, with lone individuals taking a stand against a big record industry - people love that!

Racket

[Abit667 (745465)]

The RIAA does make a bit of a racket, finally some one telling them to quiet up.

Coincidence????

[rueger (210566)]

Was I the only person who was unable to access the Slashdot site at the exact moment that this was posted?

Coincidence? I think not!

A Long Shot?

[klasikahl (627381)]

I think it's worthy to note that, in the headline, CNET News called the lawsuit a "long-shot."

In his immortal gangster words...

[narftrek (549077)]

Say hello to my LITTLE FRIEND!

*mows down RIAA*

God I love you Pacino....

Great...

[Sancho (17056)]

Now they'll start suing everyone for hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of offering to settle. And they've got the perfect excuse--the US government made them do it.

Re:Great...

[HBI (604924)]

Let them get some huge judgements and watch how fast the laws are amended in the public's favor.

Nothing like a few citizens getting their ass reamed to foster change in government.

Re:Great...

[ender81b (520454)]

yes, obviously, because unfair punishment laws like "three strikes and your out" and all the war on drugs stuff has caused an enormous backlash...

Re:Great...

[nosilA (8112)]

'Three Strikes' laws are actually quite popular among the citizens because they are perceived to protect the law obiding majority from the violent criminals. Likewise, nearly every instance of unfair punishment in the war on drugs has been against a poor minority, and the majority thinks "this won't happen to me."

In contrast, most people do not perceive sharing music as a crime. In fact, it's pretty hard to explain to most people what is wrong with it. Seeing people get sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing a few digital music files is far more likely to evoke a reaction.

I can't predict how the public will react, and I'm especially unsure that people will care enough to do anything about it, but this is quite a different case from those you cited.

The difference

[ObviousGuy (578567)]

The Mafia doesn't offer you your day in court if you would rather not pay your protection money.

The RIAA is suing those whom they think are guilty of file sharing. If you are not guilty, you have the absolute right to demand your day in court.

I'm not trying to absolve the RIAA for their heinous practices, but there is nothing illegal about what they are doing.

Re:The difference

[barc0001 (173002)]

They're "Offering a day in court"?

Please.

They're saying "Pay this small fine of several thousand dollars, or when we take you to court we'll ensure that you and all of your immediate family are destitute for the next 3 generations"

They're banking (no pun intended) on the fact that most people see that it will cost at least as much as the proposed fine to hire a lawyer and fight, and by fighting there is no guarantee they will win, so they just pay the fine rather than take the risk.

Sounds at least a bit like extortion to me...

Re:The difference

[StarWreck (695075)]

The RIAA dosen't offer you a day in court either. They have so much financial resources that they can just force any case that goes to court to stretch out so long that you will simply go bankrupt and try to flee to Mexico. They know that there is hardly a Jury on earth that would side with a corrupt monopoly that sues 12 year olds, so they just force you to spend tens-of-thousands of dollars in the preliminaries before you even get to Jury selection.

Re:The difference

[and by (598383)]

But if they do that and you can show that they're doing so in order to unnecessarily prolong the proceedings or cause undue hardships (and we're not talking a high standard of proof here) they get their case thrown out and they will probably have to pay for your lawyer. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11.

She'll lose

[samsmithnz (702471)]

She'll never win, she won't have the cashflow. Even if she were, by some miricle to 'win', she'd probably be bankrupt. Its about as useless as me suing IBM or Microsoft 'just for fun'

Re:She'll lose

[IllogicalStudent (561279)]

She'll never win, she won't have the cashflow.

She might not have the cashflow, but if what an earlier poster said about the Racketeering Act covering legal fees is true, that mightn't matter.

I quote the earlier poster:

Section 1964 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act not only provides for civil remedies in cases like this, but also automatically triples the damages and covers court costs and lawyers' fees.

I'm not so sure that's a good thing...

[Kjella (173770)]

So if convicted, the RIAA can either:

a) Do nothing, and seem ineffective at stopping P2P (which they already are, but it's a different thing to give up the PR battle) or
b) Drive every court case home. The evidence is quite clear, the possible damages huge. The courts might award them considerably higher fines than any settlement.

Somehow I think this will push them to b), and I sure wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of the next $97 billion lawsuit... $97 million, billion, trillion, kazillion is kinda irrelevant at that point anyway.

Kjella

Option B could prove very interesting

[KarmaOverDogma (681451)]

Doubltless under what you propose some people may get financially mowed down, but you are leaving out a few factors wich could be very good for the masses:

1) Children age 12, Grandmothers, and People without actual computers being sued in court. Wonderfully bad publicity RIAA
2) Sympathetic Jury Nullification. More wonderfully bad publicity for RIAA
3) A Hung Jury or a simple Not Guilty Verdict. Not only bad for RIAA but it sets a track record. This is one of the things they absolutely DO NOT want.
4) A wealthy defendent who hires an Attorney who can go the distance. This would also be very bad for the RIAA.

So yes, if convicted the RIAA may just take cases to court en masse, but they could also become a classic David vs. Goliath story as well.

.

Mobsters

[MaxwellX22 (754258)]

How dare they compare the Scum of the RIAA to such upstanding citizens. Such as: Al Capone, Tony Montana, and Don Corleone

BAD PRESS for poor RIAA

[holy_smoke (694875)]

"It's probably not the first time that record company executives have been likened to Al Capone, but this time a judge might have to agree or disagree."

I sincerely hope that we get a good judge on this one. A precedence ruling in favor of the alleged file swappers would be a nice help.

Every RIAA executive weenie's nightmare:

headline "RIAA COMPARED TO MOB, TACTICS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

Her lawyers should do this pro-bono for all the attention they will get from this case.

protection money

[stonebeat.org (562495)]

if it is cheaper on a monthly basis, I might just pay the protection money to RIAA, instead of signing up for itunes [apple.com]/audible [audible.com] ;)
It is a joke. Laff!! :)

huh?

[Jim Starx (752545)]

According to the RIAA, which filed its latest round of lawsuits against 531 as-yet-anonymous individuals on Tuesday, it has settled with 381 people, including some who had not yet actually had suits filed against them yet.

How's that work.....??

Why aren't there arrests?

[The Z Master (234139)]

Why is it that the police will arrest individuals, but corporations seem to need to be sued? If someone sent in a tip to the police that the RIAA were racketeering, nothing would happen, but if the same tip were applied to an individual or gang, there would be an investigation. These days, big businesses seem much more powerful because they can hide behind lawyers and deep pockets.

Re:Why aren't there arrests?

[cookiepus (154655)]

Because the whole point of a corporation is to limit personal liability?

Like if you open a store which is in your name, and someone falls down in the isle, they can sue and win not only the store, but your own home and personal assets as well.

If you open a store under a corporate name, and someone sues you, they can win, at most, the business. Your person and personal effects are separate from the business.

You may not like it, but the whole purpose of the concept of corporation is to limit liability, as above.

Barratry

[davecb (6526)]

Also known as taking unfair advantage of being an officer of the court. From the Scots term for being a corrupt judge, extended to include persistantly filing false suits.

Make the RIAA pay

[jettoblack (683831)]

The RIAA companies probably make a small profit when someone settles with them for a few grand. Lawyers take their cut, but a settlement contract isn't all that expensive or time consuming for the RIAA.

But unless they win HUGE punitive damages (and the loser actually has the money to pay and doesn't declare bankruptcy) they probably lose money when it comes down to a lawsuit. And that takes a long time and involves a lot of up-front legal expenses, for questionable return.

If enough people start counter-suing the RIAA, or at least going to court instead of settling, then the lawsuits will soon become a huge financial burden on the RIAA, even when they win.

a classic example of "the laugh test"

[shark72 (702619)]

I liked this part of the article:

"Maalouf's attorneys noted that downloading through Kazaa was openly discussed at Maalouf's daughter's school by teachers, and they downloaded songs used in classes. That should be a protected fair use of the music, the attorneys said."

First, I really wonder if the teacher said "now, put thousands of songs in your Kazaa share directory." They got nailed for apparently sharing lots and lots of copyrighted material with Internet users at large without authorization, not for downloading a song or two at the behest of a teacher.

At any rate, helping yourself to a copy of Photoshop because you need it for a class project isn't "protected fair use" (although, sensibly, Adobe and many other software companies do often take steps for students to legally get software at less than retail cost), and neither is downloading a song. Did the teacher mislead them into thinking that massive music piracy was legal? Fine; sue the teacher. But it's no excuse to break the law.

There are plenty of legitimate ways to fight back against the recording industry (as the main subject of the article is doing), but this defense is just plain silly.

lack of accountability leads to extortion

[fermion (181285)]

In my opinion, this has never looked good for the RIAA. First, they helped create laws that would impose very large fines for relatively minor offenses. Then they make deals with alleged copyright violators to settle at a fraction of the fine.

One has to ask two questions. First, if they are willing to settle for such a small amount, why are the fines so high to begin with. Wouldn't it be more efficient to set fines at a appropriate level in the first place? It is very arguable that such high fines were created to allow extortion.

Second, why do they want to settle so badly? It seems like they would want some percentage of the cases to go to court to establish that these people actually violated copyright. As it stands, it would be very reasonable to assert that they are randomly choosing people, and then extorting money from them.

So, with the current tactics, extortion and fear seems to be their game. It is like those old shows where a gang would go into a business and demand protection money. There are legal ways to extort this kind of money, the MPAA and BSA does it. The RIAA does not seem to care about the law.

I really don't understand why the RIAA does not get an independent arbitrator to look at each case, assign a dollar value to the damages, and then send a letter to the alleged violators. Further legal proceedings might occur if the money is not paid, but at least then we would have some confidence that the RIAA is not just harassing innocent people.

Wow, if everyone who gets sued by RIAA...

[Comatose51 (687974)]

If they all counter-sued and dried up RIAA's resources, it would be like the legal equivalent of a Slashdotting!

Possible defense?

[Dan East (318230)]

IANAL, and am just thinking out loud, but couldn't those that have been singled out by the RIAA claim some sort of discrimination? More specifically, there are hundreds of thousands of people the RIAA could pursue for sharing music. What is the chance of convincing a court to force the RIAA to attempt to identify and prosecute every single user of Kazaa that distribute RIAA music?

Not only would it cost the RIAA a fortune (as well as create logistical impossibilities), but as soon as the children of a few politicians, celebrities, executives, etc, are fingered by the RIAA we would see some fireworks fly.

Dan East

Meanwhile, in Canada...

[WormholeFiend (674934)]

CRIA named the IPs and nicknames of the Kazaa users it intends to sue.

details here:
http://www.canfli.org/index.php?name=PNphpB B2&file =viewtopic&t=24

The RIAA -are- gangsters.

[Rimbo (139781)]

Artists have known for years that they were racketeers.

Proving that in court? That's somewhat more difficult.

She has a case

[Alcoholocaust (717580)]

Section 1964 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act not only provides for civil remedies in cases like this, but also automatically triples the damages and covers court costs and lawyers' fees. Personally, I'd like to see a massive class-action lawsuit against these dirtbags. If it can be won, surely the damages would be enough to curb their malicious behavior.

Re:She has a case

[somethinghollow (530478)]

Look for Howard Berman [house.gov], et al, to start introducing rackateering-exempt bills that would protect organizations such as members of the RIAA and MPAA.

Re:She has a case

[iminplaya (723125)]

They may already started down that route with the HMO's. I can't remember if that "HMO Protection Act" has passed or not. It might just be slipped in with some sort of tort reform thing. Either way, the gov't will do what it can to protect its main propaganda machine.Taken to the extreme, they could be assimilated into the federal gov't, making them immune to all lawsuits. I know that's silly, but worse things have happened.

Re:She has a case

[by Anonymous Coward]

She has a problem. RICO requires a criminal act:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/ usam/title9/110mcrm.htm#9-110.010 [usdoj.gov]

She may be able to get a criminal act by a violation of the Sherman Antitrust act:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div_stats/1638.htm [usdoj.gov]

Section 1959 (18 USC 1959, on the first link) spells out that just racketeering won't do it, you need a criminal act in support of this. Now, a successful argument that the RIAA is an illegal monopoly, would be the criminal act that brings massive awards and possible injunctions, but that is a big hump.

I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice

Re:She has a case - really

[kurt555gs (309278)]

I just read that a fedral judge told the RIAA to stop calling file sharing 'piracy'.

He said, it is something new and not yet defined, but it is not 'piracy'

I do not think I should have to pay some organazation every time i hear a tune.

I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...

And neither is the fedral judiciary

cheers

Re:She has a case - really

[burris (122191)]

I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...

I won't disagree with you but Congress already has. The DMCA, of all laws, changed the definition of "commercial gain" to include "the receipt, or expectation of receipt" of copyrighted material. In other words, Congress specifically made mere trading illegal. People running P2P clients are making infringing material available because they expect to download other infringing material.

burris

Re:She has a case - really

[wo1verin3 (473094)]

>> Since when do judges in the U.S. define the
>> meaning of words in a language?

Judges anywhere can tell lawyers to stop using one term to describe another. If I call a person who was shoplifting a murderer, that can influence the audience, media, and jury, any anyone else involved in a case. I imagine most people see a huge difference between shoplifting and killing, but I'm not alone in seeing a huge difference between piracy and file sharing.

Re:She has a case

[IgnoramusMaximus (692000)]

Actually no. You see many people (I think a growing number) are starting to realize that music is not property. To be fair, no information can be "property". The only reason we stick to this flawed paradigm is because all of the legal mechanisms of our societies are geared toward handling physical "private property" and are unable to cope with attempts at using information as "property".

I recommend this [isanet.org] analysis of the fallacies of treating information that way. The RIAA/MPAA and the current USPO maddness are only tips of the iceberg. Think someone else's "ownership" of your DNA and patenting/copyrights on large integer numbers.

Re:She has a case

[ajd1474 (558490)]

Music (or software) Piracy is not about stealing some sort of physical property, and never has been. If I "steal" a song via Kazaa, the RIAA isn't short one copy. However, by copying or distributing copyrighted works you are, in effect, depriving the original author of that work income (lets just pretend the artist usually gets the money).

It's not about whether you would or wouldn't have purchased a copy if it were cheaper or easier either. The fact is that you have taken something for free, which the owner has asked payment for. Just as a service isn't property, but you are still required to pay for your phone, your cable, your Doctor etc.

The law does not see music as property, just as it doesnt see a service as property, it is somewhere in between. The flaw isn't in the way the RIAA treats music, the flaw is in those who somehow feel right in taking something which they should rightly be required to pay for. It costs a lot of money to produce and promote an album, and those who pay for that are entitled to due payment for you using it.

If you are SERIOUS about supporting artists, and SERIOUS about screwing the RIAA. Go out and support your local unsigned artists by turning up to their gigs and buying their CD's, but dont take something you aren't entitled to just because you think music shouldn't be owned by anyone.

Re:She has a case

[Loki_1929 (550940)]

" they are doing what they have a legal right to do in respect to protecting their property. "

Actually, this lawsuit alleges that they are, in fact, doing what they do not have a legal right to do. We shall see. Furthermore, previous tactics (such as mass-suing individuals from one location regardless of where the alleged infringement took place) has already been ruled illegal. Thus, a whole bunch of subpoenas were ruled invalid.

"Yes it is their property, without going into how they got it and if their contracts with musicians are screwing the musicians. Also forgetting that they would rather litigate than release a simple way to pay for the music online without only being able to listen to it once."

Actually, this has RICO and anti-trust implications. If the RIAA, (and thus member companies) are guilty of RICO and anti-trust violations, it may very well not be their intellectual property at all. In any event, it would be highly doubtful that they would be able to continue enforcing their IP rights.

" everyone downloading it is pirating it under the law,"

Really? Pirating? That's rather ... absurd. Legally speaking, by making unauthorized copies of the music to which the RIAA holds copyrights, they're committing 'copyright infringement'. Copyright infringement is about the legal equivalent of tresspassing, only the draconian laws surrounding it have set the possible damages per infringement absurdly high to discourage commercial copyright infringement.

"This should be no surprise, they are simply using the laws we have allowed to be created. "

There's a woman in New Jersey who, along with her lawyers, not only believes differently, but is willing to put her 'rear end' on the line to prove it. Should she succeed, or even get a foot in the door, I think you'll see a whole lot more suits like her's. Do you think the RIAA can afford to engage, say 10,000 people, in long, involved lawsuits?

Ah yes, P2P lawsuits - the new face of law.

Re:So what does she want them to do?

[The Mad Hawk (16167)]

It would be really neat if it actually worked this way. It doesn't. The civil courts are less and less about who's in the right and more and more about who can afford to play the game. The math works in the RIAA's favor here. If I'm going to have to lawyer up to the tune of ten grand I don't have and waste a year of my hairline to defend my name, or pay two grand that I can spread out on credit cards, how is that so different from "pay us 30% out of the register, or maybe have an electrical fire?"

As for open and shut cases, do you really trust an organization that's suing a list of IP addresses because they can't actually go to the trouble of finding actual defendants? Given that a significant percentage of the last batch of addresses aren't even in the United States (the jurisdiction of the court in which the suits were filed), do we trust their investigative prowess so much as to call the cases open and shut? If you're truly concerned about harm to your business, you do the research. If you can't even be bothered to

for ip in `cat ip-addresses.txt`; do whois -h whois.arin.net $ip | grep 'Country:' | grep -i us | wc ; done

before you trot your ass down to the courtroom, you look a little less than honest in your plaintive wails of "stop the evil file sharers from starving our artists!"

If you happen to know the plaintiff in the RICO countersuit, and you know she is guilty, then my apologies for my tone. Otherwise, I'll keep an open mind as to who the real extortionist is.