RIAA Countersued Under Racketeering Laws 893
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Stick it to the Man!
Start a Trend (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
(Of course, this will end when the RIAA then settles with the woman herself, paying her to shut up.)
In fact, whether the woman wins or loses, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
RIAA getting sued... (Score:4, Interesting)
Double-Edged Sword (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, this might actually push companies which like to send out legal threats to "poorer" folks to actually go to the court, in defence of being countersued.
BAD PRESS for poor RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
How's that work.....??
Re:Great... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing like a few citizens getting their ass reamed to foster change in government.
899lb Gorilla (Score:4, Interesting)
Happy Trails
Erick
Why aren't there arrests? (Score:5, Interesting)
Like DirecTV, or not? (Score:4, Interesting)
a classic example of "the laugh test" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I'm not so sure that's a good thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
YOU GO GIRL!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
The difference - Maybe not (Score:2, Interesting)
IANL obviously.
Re:Why aren't there arrests? (Score:4, Interesting)
If an individual accidentally kills a few people, it's a few counts of manslaughter and considerable jail time. If a corporation does it, it's a lawsuit and some cash.
Re:Start a Trend (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know how good this is going to hold up. Settling out of court is a completely viable option for two parties, and a preferred one often because it means not tying up the courts.
Possible defense? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
everyone downloading it is pirating (Score:3, Interesting)
everyone UPLOADING is breaking the law.
wish I had some Overrated mod points... (Score:1, Interesting)
Slashdot hypocrisy #358 (Score:2, Interesting)
PS2 and iTunes = good
Vote with your wallet.
Meanwhile, in Canada... (Score:5, Interesting)
details here:
http://www.canfli.org/index.php?name=PNphp
Re:She has a case (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room
She may be able to get a criminal act by a violation of the Sherman Antitrust act:m [usdoj.gov]
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div_stats/1638.ht
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:About time! (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously?
Re:This pig doesn't have wings (Score:1, Interesting)
Someone takes $10 from you, they said they didn't do it, you tell them that you will have them arrested, you offer them a chance to give you back the money plus a small penalty before it has to come to that.
Re:She has a case - really (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:This pig doesn't have wings (Score:2, Interesting)
If one pleads guilty to a capital crime that one knows one did not commit in order to obtain a sentence of 20 years and avoid the risk of death penalty at trial that is not fair.
You are, nonetheless, a convicted murderer with no presumption of innocence and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is your right to accept such a plea bargain and thus waive your own civil rights in the matter if you think that is a better legal tactic.
You are thinking in terms of justice.
Silly boy. That can get you fried.
KFG
Re:This pig doesn't have wings (Score:4, Interesting)
The US courts consider us CRIMINALS. Unless there's an uprising, that's how it's going to stay.
(If the CRIA sues me, I figure I'll shred my hdd and say I never downloaded noooothing)
Six Degrees of Separation... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, at what point over 1000 do the poor civilians start shooting back?
Civil liberties are dead.
ent
Re:huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously people freak and they settle. Then the RIAA wins because it looks like people are backing down.
Well that's Texas (Score:1, Interesting)
Texas is fucked up. How will this fare in the real world?
Defense fund? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:She has a case (Score:4, Interesting)
What you are describing is a result of decades of unscrupulous brainwashing by various "information industries".
Let me explain:
The musicians are only entitled to pay for their labour. That, in their case means performances. LIVE performances. You charge at the gate and no issue with "stealing". Why? Simple. Beecause if they are using a recording of a performance they in effect are using someone's elses playback device (fully paid for by the listener) playing data from a media disk (also fully paid for). The performance is done by the machine not the musician. As such the entire industry system is based on a single performance and then a stream of endless payments for not performing it again is totally unrealistic.
Sure you can try and bend and twist laws and technology to stop the obvious results of this insane idea but it will fail sooner or later. Same problem applies to DVDs, Sattellite TV and a myriad of other related "products".
The entire mis-understanding comes from the fact that what you think is "art" is in fact consumer abuse. "Artists" only create art from the need to express themselves and not for money. Sure they need to live on something and so we have concerts, exhibitions, wealthy patrons and government grants. You see none of this copyright-based McMusic industry was around back in the days of Plato, Shakespeare, Mozart, Bethoven, DaVinci and so according to the current set of demagogues these people never produced anything art-like.
You must snap out of this miserable state of being a tool for the "information" industry.
Re:About time! (Score:3, Interesting)
What if... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let the RIAA run into this situation, and they'll end up cutting off their collective nose in spite of their face.
Re:She has a case - really (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Start a Trend (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, it's not as fitting an end to the RIAA as being gunned down by a rival street gang in LA (or arrested by the LAPD), but it's something. I wonder if they're due for an audit...
Re:She has a case (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh well, there goes my chance to mod any posts in this thread. I had to respond .. (silly me) :-), I can attest to the long hours, weeks, and years of practice, training, writing, recording, for which some financial return is not unwarranted.
I think people should realize that music is not "information" either. It's not a law of physics or mathematics, it's not "data" other than in the sense that it's a digital file, in the context of internet swapping.
Music is Art. If a musician gives away his or her copyrights and publishing, that is his/her perogative, but I don't believe that all artistic works should automatically be treated as public domain, any more than you'd demand that all fiction authors give away their works and novels, or at least allow the public to freely swap them. Taking this scenario to the extreme, only one single copy of any given book would ever have to be purchased, and that would form a pool from which any trade or swap could be conducted by simply copying the work.
Speaking as a musician myself, but one who has made not a dime from publishing or original works (at least not yet
Then, there is the matter of the expenditure on equipment. It's still a little hard to believe that a Gibson Les Paul Standard is well over $2000 these days, to me.
Having said all this, I don't particularly sympathize with the RIAA, because they're not really looking out for the musicians, they're just looking out for themselves. Sure, it costs a lot (millions!) to promote, produce, and distribute musical works but the percentages that the bands get per track are not commensurate with the much larger contribution artists make to the song itself, without which, of course, there would be nothing to promote, produce, or distribute in the first place.
Re:Why aren't there arrests? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also Particularly Difficult (Score:3, Interesting)
--> Further, the Criminal Division will not approve "imaginative" prosecutions under RICO which are far afield from the congressional purpose of the RICO statute. A RICO count which merely duplicates the elements of proof of traditional Hobbs Act, Travel Act, mail fraud, wire fraud, gambling or controlled substances cases, will not be approved unless it serves some special RICO purpose. Only in exceptional circumstances will approval be granted when RICO is sought merely to serve some evidentiary purpose.
However, it seems as though this is basically the purpose of RICO, if worded carefully enough: "The decision to institute a federal criminal prosecution involves balancing society's interest in effective law enforcement against the consequences for the accused." In other words, the implication seems to be that RICO serves to protect citizens from litigation which they cannot pursue due to legal fees and great personal damages (i.e., grossly misproportioned punishments) by groups or individuals who can offer "settlements" which deprive the courts of their function.
In other OTHER words, the point seems to be: if something is truly illegal, a full case in the courts should be seen as a neccessary requirement by BOTH parties in order to gain proper compensation for the illegal act. OTHERWISE, individuals who have power over the state or a market can abuse the system by creating lawsuits that others can't win but offer bribes out of them for personal gain.
But of course, IANAL. I just read some random legislation and made an interpretation out of it.
Wow.. this could bring about some CHANGE (Score:2, Interesting)
If this case is won, and the RIAA lawsuits are stopped in their tracks, I predict an overnight explosion in filesharing. Seriously, people in the U.S. right now are downright scared of sharing on p2p. I know I am, especially after getting a DMCA notice. I'm not saying that essentially unlimited p2p would necessarily spell the death of the RIAA and insane prices for music CDs but I think it would be a pretty clear mandate to the RIAA that they need to change their business plan fast.
Give it up RIAA (Score:1, Interesting)
Still; the rock genre has been here longer than any other music genre.. and I believe that in the end, it will outlast everyone else. Not because there are more "sub genres" within it, but because the majority of the artists in this group care more about music than getting paid. Sure, making money is the key to their success... but really.. don't they make enough as it is? They can cut down on a few condos and expensive cars for awhile...
Crack the shell... (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason associations are started on behalf of member companies is even if there is a huge backlash, the member companies are completely protected. Much in the way a business you started can be sued into oblivion without having any real affect on you or your family.
If this lady does actualy win, everything the RIAA has in the bank will go for legal fees, she won't get a dime, and the record industry will form some other orginization to take the RIAAs place.
What we need to be doing is suing the labels themselfs for racketeering!
Re:I'm not so sure that's a good thing... (Score:2, Interesting)
In the same way, what's to stop me from suing my next door neighbor for copyright violation of, say, my Great American Novel (part I) that is on my open WAN in an unprotected folder. Supposing that I actually had a registered copyright, how could my neighbor defend him- or herself? Surely whether or not the file is on their machine is irrelevant
IANAL, but it seems to me that any "evidence" produced by the RIAA is suspect merely because of its financial stake in the outcomes of these lawsuits. Similarly, any ISP that provides logs of IP addresses, etc., could easily be colluding with the Record Industry. The question really goes beyond music piracy to intellectually property suits in general in this era of massive amounts of digital content. Certainly, there are ways of authenticating data with encryption or whatever (I presume; I am no expert here), but why would an organization like the RIAA willingly utilize such methods, when they can more easily keep simple, fakable records of alleged-pirates' nefarious doings?
Re:She has a case (Score:1, Interesting)
True but music also is information. The very fact that you can encode it into computer data with 100% accuracy is a dead giveway.
Taking this scenario to the extreme, only one single copy of any given book would ever have to be purchased, and that would form a pool from which any trade or swap could be conducted by simply copying the work.
Exactly. The author gets paid by a wealthy patron, art foundation, etc. We all are enriched by his art. Why else write books? Out of greed? You really think all those inane paperback novels are art?!
If you are truly a musician, you compose and perform. You can get huge crowds to your concerts. Lots of money there. And internet downloading is your friend!. It advertises for you! Free! Alternatively you compose only and expect the same art-sponsoring foundations to sponsor your creativity. What is wrong with that? Well except not being able to create some perverted hype and marketing induced monstrous cash cows like Britney...
Re:She has a case - really (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm. "...receipt, or expectation of receipt", eh?
Sounds good to me... just write an article on the issue of the DMCA and copyright law. Duly register it with the Library of Congress, or whoever it is that you need to go to in order to formally register a copyright.
Then mail a copy to each and every member of congress, and each and every high-level executive of the RIAA and MPAA.
Finally, haul them all into court for violating the DMCA, as they are in receipt of your copyrighted work.
If there's a problem here because it's your copyrighted work (i.e., you have permission to distribute copies of it), then perhaps you could make use of some other copyrighted work. It should be a short bit of work to find something that has a registered copyright, but where the actual owner of the copyright can't be located.
If that won't work (say, becuase only the copyright holder can press charges under the DMCA), then perhaps you could use a copyrighted work that was created by someone morally opposed to the DMCA - RMS, for example. Let him know that you're violating his copyright, and point out that under the DMCA, not only you but everyone you sent a copy to can be taken to court and fined up to $150,000 each.
Someone smarter than I will point out exactly why this wouldn't work, I'm sure. But I like the idea of turning the legal system back upon itself, like the worm Ouroboros...
Re:Mod UP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Works every time. Little unnerving though when the judge asks me if in all cases I can follow the law as he describes it to me: my answer is "No. I am a strong proponent of jury nullification."
Dismissed immediately, three times in a row... and it happens to be the truth!
If the jury was always expected to follow the law as the judge describes it we wouldn't need juries. Jury nullification is why we're there, IMHO.
Jury nullification (Score:5, Interesting)
The prinicple is called "jury nullification." Judges are so scared of the idea of juries deciding for themselves what the law should be that lawyers are forbidden to mention the possibility in their arguments to the jury.
Re:Mod UP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Still, it is true that a jury can always acquit, even if it believes the defendant factually guilty. There are no legaly sanctioned repercussions for the jurors.
MM
--
Re:She has a case (Score:2, Interesting)
Take the song idea you used. What if I worte the song with the intention of enjoying it, and not making money on it? would I still be pissed off? Should I still demand compensation? (I ask this as more of a philosophical question as opposed to a legal one.) What did I lose? Nothing. I enjoyed the song, that is what I intended to do. The fact that thousands of other people also enjoyed it, and some people made money providing that service, does not change that.
So, what if I had intended to make money on it? Two points. First, all that I lost is the money that I thought I could perhaps have gotten if by chance someone had wanted to give it to me in exchange for the service that I provided them in the form of a CD that they would enjoy listening to. (I did not shorten that to 'money I could have made' on purpose.) Second, why did the Eagles make so much money off it while I did not? I was not prevented from doing so, and people were not prevented from buying from me, why? Well the Eagles must have provided a better service than I did, or I did a poor job of advertising my services. Or I charged too much, etc. Basically I did a poor job of running my business of selling music CD's.* Is there any reason that I should expect to earn money when I can't run a proper business? I do not think so.
The trouble with your whole argument is this. People have for years been able to make money, due to the priveledge that the government grants to you of being the only person that can copy something. So people have come to think that they have the right to take away owners rights, under threat of government power, to do with their property (copies of stuff in this case) whatever they deem fit, for the sole purpose of enriching themselves. This is wrong. (well, I define 'wrong' here as, things which end up with people losing their liberty)
*There can be a valid use of copyrights. If the Eagles, in this instance, owned most, if not all of the equipment for making CD's, or most if not all of the means to transport CD's, or for any other reasons had an effective monopoly on making and selling music, and won't help me, but only take my songs, then I an effectivly prevented from making money on my CD. Not because I ran a crappy business, but because I am prevented from doing so by unfair business practices. If I am trying to make money, I will not write music in this case, because I can't. (through no fault of my own) This is not good for society as a whole, because more music is better. Copyrights in this case make more music for society, by giving me some money if I write music. That is what the founders wanted.
Unfortunately, copyright law has been twisted 180 degrees, so now it is the thing that is supporting the very thing that it was meant to prevent, namely, an unatural monopoly that exploits society for its own gain. (they now exploit the buyers of music as well as the artists) I can support Copyrights in general, but not what we have now.
If there is still something wrong with this argument, I want to hear it.
Others involved in racketeering (Score:2, Interesting)
To quote a web source, a "racket is an act based on the blackmail, the intimidation and the fear, to get the money or the goods of others".
Sounds like SCO to me. Maybe someone will countersue SCO for racketeering?
Just a thought. I'm no expert on these sorts of things, but it seems (on the surface) to be applicable.
RIAA and morality? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a thought...
(Now the question: offtopic, troll or flamebait. These things are so unpredictable)
Re:Jury nullification -Law and Order (Score:4, Interesting)
If I ever get sued, just give me a jury with some college students on it. That's all I ask. And maybe a few baby-boomers who have bouht the same albums over and over again in vinyl, cassette and CD.
Re:She has a case (Score:2, Interesting)
2. The consumers *want* to here a live performance every now and then
3. So in order to be able to perform (and make a profit) the music-industry thinks of a way to "make this work": charge for tickets.
Now onto pre-recorded music:
1. Recording music costs a lot. You need equipment, studio-musicians, technicians, etc. etc. etc.
2. The consumers *want* to hear studio-music. They are the consumers, so they make the decisions.
3. The music-industry thinks of ways to make it work:
a. Put it on the radio/tv and let the commercials provide some revenu
b. Put it on a media and charge for that media
b. might not be the perfect sollution in your eyes, but it's what everyone wants: we want pre-recorded music and so (it should follow) we want to participate in the revenue-generation.
You are presenting this discussion as a fundamental discussion: is information free? You argue: Yes, you cannot charge for information and the right to reproduce that information for yourself only. I am not arguing about that; It might be true, it might nog be true. What I'm arguing is that we, the consumers, -IF FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION AT ALL EXISTS- voluntarily wave our rights to certain specific information-freedoms because we realise that otherwise we would not be able to listen to that music at all.
To make this work we need a way, a set of rules, to govern the relationship between music-producer and music-consumer (or: information-producer and information-consumer). What rights are we willing to give up in what conditions? It's the contract between us, the consumers and them, the producers. That contract is of course a virtual contract. It is hidden in all the rules of the laws of copyright, trademarks, DMCA etc. etc. etc.
It's like state-theory. First, there was absolute freedom and everyone could do as (s)he damn well pleased. Then societies started to evolve in which people waived certain rights in order for the society as a whole to function. The contract-theory states that there is a virtual contract between the people and the society in which the specifics of the rights and duties for the people and the society/state are layed down.
What we have now is a dispute between the consumers and the producers over the virtual contract. We should rethink that contract (read: rethink the law). There could be other ways to make it work. Think communism: just let the government pay the artists, transfer all ownership to the state and let everyone enjoy it... might not be what you envisioned, but there may be yet other ways.
Abolishing the virtual-contracts is not in our mutual interrest: they want to produce music, we want to listen to it. If we abolish the contract altogether, a lot of information-production would not be possible anymore.
Siggy.
Just more proof our legal system is a joke. (Score:1, Interesting)
Why do you think so many people spend hours and hours each day on the internet nowadays? The internet is not as corrupted as "the real world" is yet, corrupted by government, laws, media, people who shouldn't have the power to screw things up so badly.
Stealing is wrong, sure. If you steal music you deserve to be reprimanded for it just like if you stole a pack of cigarettes out of a convenience store, but not like this. The way it's happening right now.. is ludicrous. The RIAA is acting like a bunch of terrorists going around shooting offenders in the head, before asking questions.
Re:The difference (Score:3, Interesting)
This doesn't happen in the UK. I am curious.
Re:Mod UP? (Score:4, Interesting)
You missed the point (Score:1, Interesting)
Normally that is a problem because if you can't pay for it, you have to deprive someone else of an object in order to 'have' it.
But with copyrighted works, if you can't afford it, you can still copy it. You are not depriving anyone, because you couldn't have paid them in the first place.
Re:RIAA and morality? (Score:3, Interesting)
RIAA ,copyright and musicians (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:She has a case - really (Score:2, Interesting)
Such is the logic inspired by vague and badly worded law...
The logical response (Score:4, Interesting)
2 - Hire a lawyer yourself
3 - Use the lawyer to sue the RIAA for copyright infringement claiming X*(9/10) damages but offer settlement of X*(5/10)
4 - Put all the legal papers on the internet for download
5 - Let anyone download the papers, fill in their names in appropriate places, and submit them with only the filing fee to pay
6 - Have them all sue the RIAA at once, for a whole bundle of lawsuits, all of which it is more economical to concede on than defend
7 - If it does concede any of them, and if anyone opposes one of the RIAA's later lawsuits, have them invoke the doctrine of unclean hands on the grounds that the RIAA has settled in a whole bunch of copyright infringement cases
8 - Laugh
Why doesn't someone sue SCO for racketeering? (Score:1, Interesting)