![Music Music](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/music_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Class Action Suit Against RIAA Can Proceed 133
fourohfour writes "Ars Technica is running a story on Tanya Andersen, who was awarded attorney fees in September of last year after the RIAA dropped their case against her. The RIAA subsequently appealed that award, but a US District Court judge yesterday not only upheld the award, but also upheld the dismissal of her counterclaims without prejudice. They may now be heard as part of a malicious prosecution lawsuit against the RIAA. Andersen is seeking class action status for her lawsuit, so that anyone else who has not engaged in illegal file sharing but has been threatened with legal action by the RIAA may join in. This is the case that alleges that the RIAA attempted to contact Andersen's then eight-year-old daughter under false pretenses without her permission."
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
/. readers are excluded then (Score:5, Funny)
Counts us all out then
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gotcha.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually in most areas, if not all, you merely have to pay a percentage of the bail amount set by the judge. I believe 10% is the going rate.
I'm from Oregon where they don't have bail bondsmen and you simply pay your percent to the jail itself. So I'm not sure how the rest of the country operates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Just like the London Police Inspector (same rank as Lieutenant in the US) who was bailed [bbc.co.uk] in September - innocent until proven guilty, he paid £200,000 (~ US$400,000) to walk around free while awaiting trial for the strangling of his wife with a cable tie.
He used the time to shoot dead his wife's mother, then kill himself with the same gun ...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He used the time to shoot dead his wife's mother, then kill himself with the same gun ...
So, you're advocating swifter justice? Locking people up without a trial? What?
If you wish to protect the rights of the masses, then you must accept that you'll take some losses as a result. If losses are not acceptable, then take away the rights. Only problem is... it won't be YOU taking away said rights, it will be whoever can get their hands on the most power the fastest under a system of brutal repression... but if that's what you'd prefer, far be it for me to stop you from voting for whoever promises
Re: (Score:2)
Um, swifter justice would be good, yes. As would locking people charged with murder up before - not the same thing as without - trial.
I wasn't advocating anything, just disapproving of those exceptional cases where someone with access to lots of money, or with a previously good character, can get bail despite being accused of a heinous crime.
And seriously? You think that by commenting on a foolish judicial decision (and ther
Re: (Score:2)
Um, swifter justice would be good, yes.
How do you get both swift and fair?
As would locking people charged with murder up before - not the same thing as without - trial.
The reason we don't do this, of course, is because it can take quite some time to get to trial. We can increase the pace of that phase, but then your example would have been that some killer went free and killed again because the prosecutor didn't have enough time to put together his case.
We tread a very fine line between trampling on the rights of the accused (who are often innocent) and putting the public at risk. There are many variables, and the only thing that's rea
Re: (Score:2)
1) He must have really hated his Mother-in-Law. Sure, she was apparently going to give evidence against him w.r.t. his wife's demise, but knowing he was going to top himself, it was above and beyond the call of duty to off the MiL first!
2) I guess we'll never know if he was guilty of killing his wife now!
Re: (Score:2)
I get your overall drift, but this doesn't follow. Being presumed innocent has nothing to do with what everyone believes of the situation.
Plus, even being found not guilty after a trial does not mean that you were in fact innocent.
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting flip-side to this is that being found guilty doesn't actually mean you are guilty! This is something people sometimes have trouble with, and yet the opposite is accepted.
Re: (Score:2)
So, being found not guilty or guilty speaks to your state before the law, not to your state in fact. Right?
The law presumes you innocent. You may actually be innocent or you may actually be guilty.
The law then finds you guilty... You may actually be innocent or you may actually be guilty.
or...
The law then finds you no guilty... You may actually be innocent or you may actually be guilty.
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider traffic tickets, for example -- you sign a promise to show up for trial (or to plead guilty by mail and pay the fine) when you accept the ticket. If you don't sign, the cop can and probably will haul you off to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that the severity is very relevant. What is relevant is that you are not a danger to other people, you are not in a position to destroy evidence, you are not likely to leave town and you are likely to show up in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not always of course. It is perfectly acceptable to hole someone up in Gitmo for years without trial. But of course, that's different isn't it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between jail and prison, despite the way these terms are used interchangeably. In general, prison is punishment for convicted criminals.
If you think about it a bit, it seems very difficult to create a system of justice whereby "presumed innocent" criminals can be permitted to roam free during the weeks or months of their trial. Crimes occur. Someone commits them. The chap you found may not actually be guilty. But if your policy is that you cannot apprehend someone until a court conviction, what guarantee do you have that the accused will stick around for the trial? The policy of arrest/jail/bail may have false positives. But a system of never putting someone into jail into convicted seems horribly naive. Either you don't let them know you're "proving them guilty" and just catch them when you've done so (which doesn't provide for a defense) or you let them know they're a suspect and politely request they don't bolt for Mexico and please don't kill anyone else while they're gathering evidence.
Having said that, we must have safeguards for Habeus Corpus and the right to a speedy trial for this to work. Otherwise, we devolve into a system whereby the police (or corrupt leaders) do indeed judge you guilty (or otherwise deserving of punishment/pain) and toss you into jail where you rot. Think "Les Miserables".
This is why the recent diminishments of Habeus Corpus and the fact that several people (US citizens apprehended in the US) have spent YEARS in Guantanamo Bay before any charges were filed are so incredibly troubling.
In principle, your view that we're "guilty until proven innocent" seems quite wrong. In practice, it also seems we're sliding somewhat in that direction.
Re: (Score:2)
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed..." - 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution
I can't see no "presumption" that court must give prosecuted the benefit of doubt with presumption of "innocent" nor presumption of "guilty". Matter of fact, that would be prejudice in both regards.
Why else w
juries (Score:2)
Jury of your peer will say, "Hmm... this jury duty really sucks."
I've been called for jury duty twice but wasn't picked either tyme to serve on a jury. And I was hoping to be picked to serve on a jury deciding a drug case. I wanted to use the third box in protecting liberty, the first two being the soap and ballot boxes and the fourth the ammo box.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
That's probably why you weren't picked... Not only did you actually want to serve, but you also wanted to make a point! Lawyers can smell that, you know...
No, I wasn't even called for questioning. All I did was show up and wait for my name to be called out. Actually as for whether lawyers would want me sitting on a jury, defense lawyers would want me, it's prosecutors who wouldn't. That's because I would vote innocent when I thought a law was bad and shouldn't exist. It's what's called Jury Nullifica [greenmac.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Regards,
Art
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Claim what you will of the RIAA. There's no doubt that they have lied and mislead to their utmost ability. But to claim that THEY are the ones who are responsible for the muddied waters misses the fact that the Judges are the ones who are making a final determination in many cases. It is the Judges whom are to blame even more than the RIAA. The Judges do not nee
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is a good thing, since it would be evidence against all of us.
No, I'm not worried.
Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, if you were into a +5 Funny, it seems you used the wrong word here.
Nope (Score:2)
Firstly I'm in the UK, the RIAssA et al can stuff themselves.
Secondly I don't share music. (Yep, that's a full stop!) I'm able to afford to buy any that I take a fancy to. Haven't bought a CD for almost a year now though, prefer to switch on the radio.
Pr0n OTOHBonus: We now have the BBC streaming iPlayer, who could ask for anything more?
Re: (Score:2)
oohhh yeeesss... but... (Score:5, Interesting)
End Result (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA loses. Everyone gets a coupon worth $1 off the latest (DRM laden) Britney Spears CD.
Re:End Result (Score:5, Funny)
But if they lose, why do we get punished?
Re: (Score:2)
But if they lose, why do we get punished?
Re:End Result (Score:5, Funny)
bin Laden's rapper brother?
Re: (Score:2)
That's if the RIAA loses, you need to read the rest of the story. If the RIAA wins, everybody gets a coupon for $2 off the latest DRM-laden Britney CD.
Re: (Score:2)
But if they lose, why do we get punished?
The losers get the CD for free.
...you forgot the lawyers. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just ever so slightly more than the lawyers will charge for their services...
Re:oohhh yeeesss... but... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a great question. Will the member companies use the RIAA like an umbrella company saying that the liability is the RIAA's or will they take responsibility for filing these frivolous suits?
More to the point, these suits are filed as Record Label vs. some poor joe not as RIAA vs. right? This case is Atlantic vs. Anderson, is Atlantic responsible for the damages? It would certainly seem to me that the RIAA cant claim all the liability when Atlantic's name is on the suit. Any Lawyers out there who know whether the RIAA can be used as an umbrella to protect the label from liability in this kind of litigation?
Re:oohhh yeeesss... but... (Score:4, Interesting)
The way I see it is Atlantic and the RIAA have two choices:
1) Atlantic takes full responsibility for being a part of an organization that brings spurious claims to court and is the only business to be responsible for damages.
2) The RIAA attempts to intercede, or Atlantic tries to shift blame towards the RIAA, and forces all members of the RIAA to be culpable due to collusion.
Just one last note, the RIAA cannot bring the cases against the alleged copy-right violators because they do not have standing to sue as they are not directly harmed financially by the "infringement". If they did have standing to sue in place of their member businesses then that would make the argument for collusion, price fixing, and monopolization essentially set in stone.
Forget the end result (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA needs counseling (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everybody knows that no amount of counseling will cure a person, unless that person's a congressman, then he'll go through rehab and be cured.
What did they say to her daughter? (Score:5, Funny)
Hi, Sally, this is Mr. Nice calling, is your mommy home? No? Good... I mean, uh, well then can I just talk to you for a minute instead? Tell me Sally, how would you feel about living with a foster family after we toss your mommy in the clink? I mean, she's subjecting you to gangsta rap, for Heaven's sakes, we'd be doing you a favor!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What did they say to her daughter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What did they say to her daughter? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, Sally, this is Mr. Nice calling, is your mommy home? No? Good... I mean, uh, well then can I just talk to you for a minute instead? Tell me Sally, how would you feel about living with a foster family after we toss your mommy in the clink? I mean, she's subjecting you to gangsta rap, for Heaven's sakes, we'
Hope this opens the door for Extortion charges (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they should hammer the media companies on conspiracy charges because they are the ones knowingly financing the RIAAs shenanagins, that have already been proven illegal.
It'll never do any good! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:It'll never do any good! (Score:4, Interesting)
IOW, this could be yet another nail in the coffin of the RIAA. The bright side is that it could lead to a wider variety of marketing schemes, competition, and better prices for the consumer. The dark side is that it will likely just turn into a series of buyouts until we wind up dealing with the 'Ma Bell' of the recording labels that owns everything that used to be other major labels. But that's capitalism for ya, surf on.
-Rick
Ok, what gives??? (Score:5, Funny)
We have an article about how a class action suit can proceed against the RIAA. Scroll down a bit and there is a story about Microsoft opening up their binary formats. For free. Download them from their webpage. Scroll down a bit more and there is an article about a trial finally being set to see what SCO owes Novell.
What gives?
Did I slip through some wormhole in space and land in a universe where wishes are granted? Is it April 1st? Next thing I expect to see is a release date for Duke Nukem Forever.
I may just buy some lottery tickets on the way home tonight, just to see if the streak continues.
Yes you did (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to check hells thermostat maybe..
Re: (Score:2)
Whew (Score:2)
Ok. Bitter retorts, sarcasm, and soul crushing pessimism. We're back to normal.
I was worried there for a moment.
SCO and Microsoft (Score:2)
Hopefully next *year* SCO will finally be dead, dead, dead but by then I figure it'll be replaced by some Microsoft patent FUD. In other words, business as usual.
This is MS patent FUD, MS is just using SCO as a surrogate.
FalconAnother Misleading Title (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Battle of New Orleans (Score:4, Funny)
The only way the class action suit against the RIAA can make any progress is if they sue for One novemdecillion dollars!!
Just the name of the number itself inspires awe.
Think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it too much to hope for criminal charges? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Isn't that more or less child abuse? (Score:2)
Yeah, jail would be nice - with a lot of soap that is just too slippery to hang on to in the shower..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I expect the mother to ask her child testify in court and the 8 yr old stating a male voice called her under false pretenses and "solicited" her. She does not even need to understand the meaning; Just say the voice called her about "soliciting" something...
And then leave it to child molester lawyers and public prosecutors....
Before the RIAA lawyers can board a plane to Brazil... they would be enjoying the
Re: (Score:2)
That is a very dangerous things to say. I'd call this incitement to crime. I mean, why wouldn't a lot of readers of Slashdot commit a crime to be rewarded with 1 month in prison with these RIAA lawyers..
Seriously. You should think before making these kinds of comments. Very very dangerous here.. Probably more dangerous would be giving out the actual prison they'd be
Re: (Score:2)
You are quite welcome.
Next, on To Catch a Predator... (Score:4, Funny)
RIAA: Hello little girl...
Chris Hansen: I'm Chris Haaaaansen
All Of A Sudden... (Score:4, Funny)
Unless, of course, the settlement is 5 coupons for CD's.
Coupons? For CDs? Never. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now.. Say she gets a settlement of $7.5M. The RIAA only has to give her 1000 Britney CDs and their obligations have been paid.
See. Easy. RIAA never loses.
Class elements (Score:5, Informative)
A court will certify a class proceeding where there is:
1. An identifiable group
2. With a cause of action that has a triable issue
3. With an appropriate class representative
4. Whom all have common issues
5. and Whose conflict is best resolved by a class action.
In this case, on 1:
Is the identifiable group people who have been sued by the RIAA? The more it is a subset of individuals who have not just been sued by the RIAA, but a subset of that group that has suffered other behaviour and that other behaviour is key to the group, the less identifiable the group is (so to speak).
On 2:
Is there a cause of action for just being sued by the RIAA? If everything that the plaintiff pleads is true, and this would not give rise to a legal judgment, then the action may be dismissed at certification. This is often just a screener to certification of frivolous claims, and some jurisdictions do not have it.
On 3:
Is this lady the best class representative? Can she fund the litigation (in part, though not to the end)? Does she have any interests averse to that of the class?
On 4:
If the case requires more details of how the RIAA treated each individual, then there's an argument that the individual issues predominate over the common ones.
The stronger the case that the RIAA bringing a suit against any individual gives rise to legal remedy,the more the RIAA had a documented pattern of behaviour, the better.
On 5:
If a class proceeding is not the "best" way to resolve a conflict, sometimes it will not be certified. Alternatives including bringing a test case, individual cases, and alternative dispute resolution.
Again, the tests vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but that's the general framework of the hurdle that the plaintiff will have to get over in order to certify her action as a class action.
I wonder (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They're still evil baby eaters, but just saying that the damages are the absolute least they can take in court.
I think the only fair solution... (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't this everyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll take my check in a large please.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
"The RIAA has denied any wrongdoing and has moved for dismissal of the lawsuit."
Hurdles, hurdles..
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Funny)
Ha, what do you want ? That was expected.
What the RIAA should do is throw us all off guard and say
"you're right! fair use! we're wrong, you're right! here take our ill-gotten gains and here have our Samauri sword and please please please be swift and merciful!
Then everyone would be completely confused, erase their file sharing software and run to Wal-mart to buy CDs.
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Funny)