RIAA Accused of Extortion & Conspiracy 373
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The defendant in a Tampa, Florida, case, UMG v. Del Cid, has filed counterclaims accusing the RIAA record labels of conspiracy and extortion. The counterclaims (pdf) are for Trespass, Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 USC 1030), Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. 501.201), Civil Extortion (CA Penal Code 519 & 523), and Civil Conspiracy involving (a) use of private investigators without license in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 (a)(2)(C); (c) extortion in violation of Ca. Penal Code 519 and 523; and (d) knowingly collecting an unlawful consumer debt, and using abus[ive] means to do so, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a et seq. and Fla. Stat. 559.72 et seq."
About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Informative)
Someone has to pick up the tab for the lawyers time, the overhead of getting that law degree, their WestLaw subscription, the rent and power bill for their office, the salary of the receptionist, the salary of the secretary and the salary of the paralegal.
You pay them a 30% cut for a normal case and 50% for one that goes to appeals because a lot of them don't generate any money at all. All of you "non paying people" are subsidizing each other.
You can always pay them by the hour (like any other professional) if you don't like the contingency arrangement.
I for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's no surprise either, since many of the same characters in the RIAA are of the same ilk as the Mafia - perhaps even the direct descendants of Mafia players.
Sadly, though, it's a business model that too often works and the money made from it dwarfs any fines that are imposed afterwards.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's different because there is an actual law against copyrigth-infringement, and most of the people threathened are actually guilty of breaking that law. Now, this doesn't make it rigth. It just means current copyrigth-law is bad law.
Copyrigth-law, as currently written, makes everyone a criminal. But only the ones that RIAA (or other large copyrigth-holders) choose to go after, get punished. Which means essentially, that *THEY* are the ones who decide, by criteria dictated by them, who gets punished and who not.
That's not how it's supposed to work; elected politicians are supposed to decide what is legal and what not. But by deciding that "everything" is illegal, they've efficiently handed the keys over to RIAA et al
"Everyone" is very sligthly pushing it, but it's not far from the truth. I was at a lecture about IT and law, and the professor asked those people who have ever willingly broken copyrigth-law to raise a hand. Literally 95% of all hands went up. IT-students have more reason and more expertise, so may be sligthly over-represented, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of current 25-year-olds are guilty of breaking copyrigth-law atleast once in the last year.
We should remove or change laws which we do not intend to uphold. Otherwise we hand over the power of defining de-facto law to those deciding what and whom to investigate. (because if everyone is guilty, by deciding to investigate someone you are de-facto deciding to punish that person)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but I'm willing to bet that 95% of current 25-year-olds are guilty of breaking copyrigth-law atleast once in the last year.
I would bet that it is more like 99% if not higher, at least if they had ever attended an outdoor birthday party or grade school. The song "Happy birthday" is purported to still be under copyright and public performances without paying royalties to the ASCAP are a violation of the claimed copyright (ASCAP Title code 380008955). Kinda nice to know that every time a kid sings "Happy birthday" in class, they are committing a crime. Although to be fair, the "smell like a monkey" fair use defense has not been t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then inform them that they just violated copyright.
Mebbe then it will sink in.
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think I've ever seen someone type with a lisp before.
Re:About Time! (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixed
Re: (Score:2)
May I ask where you are from? I would use the phrase "Good for 'em", and I'm just wondering if this is a regional saying? I'm from the U.S., by the way.
I don't know about the parent's location, but we use "Good on 'em" here in Australia a fair bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been paying ANY attention, troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
> How in the hell is legally protecting your rights by suing infringers who are distributing your copyrighted materials, and offering them a settlement to avoid court cases, an example of "Mafia tactics" or "protection money?"
They abuse court processes by:
* Doing things ex parte whenever possible, making sure that the other side never has a chance to be heard in court.
* Improper joinder of unrelated cases, for which they have been sanctioned in Texas. In spite of having been enjoined by the court, they have routinely ignored that ruling and simply avoided litigating in Texas.
* Unfair settlements. Although they have acknowledged in the press that they "occasionally" find innocent defendants, they pursue even their weakest cases in court until it's obvious they're going to lose. Then they try to get a dismissal without prejudice to avoid having to pay your legal fees. This means that you can either: a) Pay a ~$3,500 settlement or b) Pay a lawyer even more than that to represent you in court. If you're innocent, you end up paying no matter what. Yes, after a long and hard court battle, Debbie Foster *finally* won reasonable attorney's fees, but she's pretty much the only one so far. Usually, they cut & run and you're just out of luck and out of money.
In short, they do precious little to make sure that the people they sue are guilty, they torment anyone they sue in court (even going after your family if you prove to be innocent), and they twist every court rule they can get away with (hint: getting sanctioned & ignoring court orders is NOT something a reputable lawyer does).
So no, I'm not going to condone this "Won't someone please think of the poor RIAA!" crap when the RIAA come preaching this hypocritical holier than thou bit with respect to copyright law, only to turn around and ignore any laws or court orders that stand in their way.
Now please crawl back under whatever bridge you came out from under.
Texas Sanctions (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a big state. Not everyone in it can be a jerk
Anyhow, ironically, the court was mad at them because they were defrauding the state of the proper filing fees by trying to get a "30 cases for the price of 1" type deal. I don't know the actual number of unrelated cases slapped together, but that at least gives you the idea.
I wonder if any lawyers challenging the John Doe cases have used that argument? Of course, the whole poin
Re: storing the balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya, a copyright infringement website defends copyright infringement. Who'd've thought. also, this lesson has been learned before [techdirt.com].
Besides, I AM an artist. If I were signed with a label/distribution company/other organ, I would make >10 per unit sold. I much prefer that people burn or download my album, then buy me a beer. I get more out of it that way.
Also, 15,010 angry nerds can't be wrong. http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-
[/rebuttal] Okay, fair point, the RIAA are just doing their job. We'll disregard for the moment it's a job that doesn't need to be done. In this case, the only thing the RIAA are guilty of is boundless enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the low-income single mothers on the receiving end of the lawsuits don't see it that way.
Okay, I've lost the thread of my argument, so I'm just going to say what I originally intended to say.
Clearchannel.
Money talks. Independent labels can't afford to get music on the radio in America, because they don't have the resource to buy the airtime or lobby the execs. The internet is their only hope. The RIAA, as far as I can work out, is accidentally crushing independent artists while they're going after the roaches. So, sure. Blame the RIAA-haters for depriving artists who already have record labels, have a valid form of income. I'll keep blaming the RIAA for keeping the little guy down with its' clumsy antics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Money talks. Independent labels can't afford to get music on the radio in America, because they don't have the resource to buy the airtime or lobby the execs. The internet is their only hope. The RIAA, as far as I can work out, is accidentally crushing independent artists while they're going after the roaches. So, sure. Blame the RIAA-haters for depriving artists who already have record labels, have a valid form of income. I'll keep blaming the RIAA for keeping the little guy down with its' clumsy antics.
I doubt that it is accidental, at least not completely. But otherwise your point stands.
No! (Score:2, Interesting)
Sarcasm aside, who didn't see this coming?
Re:No! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe not. Unchecked exercise of power breeds arrogance and carelessness.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, settle with the counter-suer for $1M (on condition that the terms are not disclosed).
Unlicensed private investigators... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think that this should at least make the RIAA use legal and more robust techniques to win cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's always: 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
dont cheer yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry... Couldn't resist the signature...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In a civil case you cannot be convicted of anything.
Shotgun blasts of counter-claims are not necessarily the best way to persuade a judge that your defense has merit... More likely he'll see these pre-trial theatrics as a waste of his time.
It is part of his job to ruthlessly prune a case back to its essentials.
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:5, Funny)
It's quite possible from a legal perspective. This would create a precedent that is only going to encourage the RIAA to sue more and more.
From a moral perspective this is much like seeing a disturbed, criminally insane child accidentally discharge a gun and kill someone, and reward him by giving him an AK-47 in a crowded shopping mall.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
*applause*
thx gir.
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:5, Insightful)
*shrug*
Seen it happen before, will happen again. Gee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:dont cheer yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, it'll be fun to watch them crap their pants and try to settle with the person for megabucks. If they flinch, their extortion plans are all over, as getting hit with a lawsuit from them will be like winning the lottery.
Please... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
"This Space Intentionally Left Blank"
I'd like to see you argue that point.
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
In Alabama, ANAL is strictly prohibited by Penal Code 5432.427c(a).
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
You hit Troll for 1
Troll hit you for -3
You used Administrative Beatdown on Troll
Damaged Troll for 775 (overkill 759)
Troll is Defeated!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it, that does not make sense!
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
Whereas the Ewoks were developing their own music infrastructure within a program called iWok (which has an internal distribution service for various music genres such as Wok & Woll).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Having non-lawyers write laws will result in really poorly-written laws with plenty of loopholes. The law is like every other specialized field; it develops its own language for a reason.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And writing ambiguous laws and having judges decide the intent is pretty dangerous too.
Since this thread goes back to mentioning early laws legel system as the standard to achieve I am courious what the intent of each ammendment to the constitution is.
Lawyers != Lawmakers (Score:4, Interesting)
Lawmakers get all red-pen happy when issues pop up because whiny constituents demand that SOMEONE do SOMETHING to keep little Timmy from hearing "shit" on TV, or possibly, after specifically looking up how to accomplish it, have an encounter with a prostitute in a video game. It's not fair to blame legislatures, though, because they are acting in direct response to the public. They want them to write laws. People want callous, superficial, entertaining campaigns. People don't want to deal with real issues, and certainly don't want to take responsibility for themselves. A democracy reflects the people in it; the United States is getting exactly what it wants. But that's a subject for another thread.
Lawyers hate the absurdity of many laws as written, and hell, even many lawmakers get annoyed at the process. Writing rules by committee is like doing anything else by committee: if there was a creative vision, a coherent drive, or a sense of logic in the beginning, it's gone by the end. This is an inevitable consequence of letting too many people express too many opinions. Dictatorships have the cleanest, clearest laws. They have other downsides.
Re: (Score:2)
Though, in a way mafiaa lawsuits and rocket science are related. Both create a whole lot of hot air in an attempt to get a lot inert mass off the ground and both cost a lot of money where you wonder just what is so expensive about them.
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
I think superseeding is what got that guy in trouble in the first place.
Hopefully, it will earn him a jury of his peers.
The reason this hasn't happened before ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Their supposed expert (actually he is an expert, just not on what he is testifying to) and their investigators only sound good until they are properly challenged. In other words they're only good enough to fool most of the victims and maybe a credulous judge.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the victims just roll over because they can't afford to pay a lawyer
On the other hand, the odds are that they have pinpointed a fair few people who have downloaded music. I really dislike their tactics (suing customers? Great idea!) and we do like to bring up the 'suing grandmothers/10 year olds/dead people' thing here on /. but it's fair to presume that with the amount of file trading going on, quite a few people that they sue are actually guilty.
Does the punishment fit the crime? I wouldn't say so, and their machine gun-like attitude to lawsuits is nauseating. But s
Re:The reason this hasn't happened before ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In truth, I think you're right about that. Peer-to-peer served to get massive collections of music into the hands of, well, the masses. Now there are millions upon millions of 50+ Gb private stashes out there. The biggest threat the music industry is facing is the large, portable hard drive
Sneakernet isn't dead: it just got bigger guns.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
About F'ing Time! (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think that I'm alone (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps a relevant quote will fit here...
"Well damn the man Joe... Damn the man."
Nephilium
Why are *AA logs worth anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA waves a piece of paper and says "Look, at 11:28 on March 23rd 2007 Zaphod was making 'Stairway to Heaven' available for downloading on the Bittorrent network".
Zaphod: "Err, no, I wasn't."
RIAA: "Yes you did, we have a piece of paper!"
Zaphod: "Give me ten seconds and I can show you a piece of paper saying anything you like."
RIAA: "We have database logs and screenshots!"
Zaphod: "Give me five minutes with a computer and I'll show you database logs and screenshots of anything you like."
RIAA: "We have bizarrely detailed logs from your ISP showing that we downloaded a file from your computer at 11:29 on March 23rd 2007!."
Zaphod: "Yes, it was a picture of me buggering your mother."
RIAA: "..."
Really, I don't understand why the *AA's 'evidence' in these matters is relevant, let alone compelling. Do they have some sort of infallible tool for proving exactly what files Zaphod had on his computer?
Re:Why are *AA logs worth anything? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why are *AA logs worth anything? KAZAA STRIKES! (Score:2)
Media Sentry claims they run KaZaA like anyone else would, and therefore find files like anyone else would.
If so, the Media Sentry computer performing this investigation is an ad-ware/spyware/crap-ware ridden piece of junk that you can't trust for a moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of these cases end up before judges who have no idea how to turn a computer on, much less understand dynamic IP addresses, file-sharing, spyware, adware, wifi hacking, or any of the myriad factors that could provide doubt in a case like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why are *AA logs worth anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say my kids are out playing in my yard and they throw a ball and it breaks a window of your car. If you sued me you wouldn't have to prove they did it, just that it's likely that they did.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to come down to "You c
One day, while merrily hunting for ants to sue... (Score:3, Funny)
This is music to my ears . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the define that as....?
I am sure there is a strict description of who this applies to.
op, sure enough:
http://www.pali.org/papdact.htm#sec12 [pali.org]
huh, what a crappy law. I don't even know how it stands up in court.
Sure, I wuoldn't hire one that wasn't liscensed or bonded, but that doesn't mean they should have to be bonded.
Based on the date of the law, I would wager this was created for some union influence.
I`m so happy (Score:3, Interesting)
a couple of articles back... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously though, it would be good to see the RIAA taken to the wall with this. To see them loose 10 or 20 times the amount they've gained from every ligitation they've performed would seem like justice to me, and perhaps it would make them think about whether all the litigation and drm technology is worth it..
More
new US laws. (Score:3, Insightful)
my main concern is the RIAA/MPAA getting new laws passed that would be similar to a criminal version of the DMCA. Here in the US it seems you can buy -almost- any law you want, even if it will get overturned by a court later and tore down by organizations like the EFF. It will still be in effect long enough to do quite a bit of damage.
see: Gonzales proposes new crime: 'Attemp [com.com]
Grocklaw (Score:3, Interesting)
I would like to see them come after me (Score:2)
And while I have a P2P program, it was used to download 4 indie films. Each was burned off to DVD and they are not on my machine anymore!
US System of Justice (Score:3, Insightful)
This article is a breath of fresh air. It is about time that the small guy takes it to the man.
The RIAA is a justice bully that is using the flawed system to protect their supposed turf, and has picked on the wrong person yet again.
The US Supreme court needs to step in and finally smack those bastards to their knees. The RIAA is not protecting the artists or the consumers -- they are a bloated association with ulterior motives that protect nothing other than their own interests and need to be given a severe reality check.
As a Canadian with different rights -- I will watch in amusement -- the US electorate needs to make this an issue, for fear of having the rest of the US Justice system undermined. The RIAA is way too big for its own britches. I hope they get cut down to the level they should be at (which is merely an association that represents the artists that make the money for the industry). Even the artists that they supposedly represent complain about them.
So what is wrong with this picture? Come on you Americans -- lobby your congress person on behalf of the artists -- the RIAA is a bully. We don't allow bullying in our schools or our workplaces. Why allow it in your marketplace?
I just read the complaint (Score:4, Interesting)
Thing of beauty. One of the few legal documents I can actually read.
It appears few stones have been left unturned in the counter complaint. It clearly alleges that the RIAA have been using scare tactics to maintain their control on music distribution. The interesting thing is that they have to now prove they didn't. Given that they the big RIAA members have been convicted of collusion in the past, I can't help but see this one becoming a really big nasty mess for them.
Given the U.S. Justice system runs slower than treacle, don't expect the RIAA to be pulled through the coals for a while.
Ironicly (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.buccaneers.com/ [buccaneers.com]
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:4, Funny)
Inconceivable.
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:4, Funny)
A spoon manufacturer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:5, Funny)
(my gift to you)
Re:How the mighty have fallen... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmm look who posted this (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Ray is a lawyer fighting the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Because his clients are generally not wealthy and cannot afford thousands of dollars on experts and legal fees, he's turned to those of us in the technical community who are sick of the RIAA's bullying legal tactics, and I believe he found an Ask Slashdot helpful for once, in spite of the trolls (surely that must be a first...).
If you want to know about the cases he's involved in, he posts about those (and others) over on his blog [blogspot.com]. Or just talk to him when he shows up on Slashdot [slashdot.org]. He's a nice guy, he reads (and responds to) pretty much all replies to his posts, save maybe the trolls. And if he seems a bit curt at times, it's because the RIAA is also watching him. That's right, they've taken note of his blog and possibly other things and tried to twist the things he says and does to use against him in court. I can't see how it's even relevant (it probably isn't), but the RIAA lawyers aren't known for playing nice (or even by the rules, if you look at all the stuff they try and pull ex parte; one Texas judge got mad at them for trying to "defraud" the state of filing fees).
In other words, he's a good lawyer, and one of our few allies in the fight against the RIAA. Very, very few people can afford to represent themselves in court, even if they're innocent, and the RIAA is taking every advantage of that fact
I, for one, intend to do pretty much anything in my power to help him out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you very much for your kind words.
One correction. I always find Slashdot helpful. A little criticism doesn't faze me in the least. I'm a fighter.
Even finding out what the trolls are up to helps me understand the enemy better.
Believe it or not, the architect and manager of the RIAA's terror campaign called me up several weeks ago to give me his personal assurance that the RIAA doesn't use trolls. (Ha, ha, ha).
Re:hmm look who posted this (Score:4, Funny)
You've got to admit it sounds great to the ears
Um that's why people share files. Most of the RIAA music doesn't sound good for the ears, and we're sick of paying for a whole CD to get the one good track on it that they never release as a single!
Re:more likely to get struck by lightning (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because its rare, doesn't make it right. Murder, as it turns out, is pretty damn rare. Does that make murder right? If its right, it would become more common and suddenly, its wrong! Where does such logic lead?
Re:more likely to get struck by lightning (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop it, they don't apply to each other.
"...it should be legal to fire at targets in your back yard in a populated area?"
if the odds are that low to hit ANYBODY, then there would be nothing wrong with firing a gun in your backyard. Of course you would be paying for any property damage.
Re:more likely to get struck by lightning (Score:5, Funny)
To the War on Drugs.
Liability (Score:2)
Did you take reasonable care in your back yard firing range?
Did you point at the ground?
Did you build a bullet resistant structure to shoot within?
eg wall, berm or hole?
Did you use ammunition that will not travel off your property?
Did you take steps to reduce the sound and impact on neighbors?
Re:more likely to get struck by lightning (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The RIAA Has This In Their Pocket (Score:5, Interesting)
E.g., in Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com], at a time when the defendant's attorneys fees totalled $55,000, and the judge was preparing to calculate how much of that was "reasonable", the RIAA served a raft of motions and other dilatory requests. The result of this boatload of litigation activity:
-in 2 1/2 months the RIAA's exposure leaped from $55k to $114k
-the judge issued a new decision attacking the RIAA lawyers' motives, veracity, and intellectual integrity, and
-the judge ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which will no doubt be described in detail in the judge's order.
I'm estimating the RIAA paid $100,000 for those "additional services".
You tell me if that was money well spent.