Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA, Safenet Sued For Malicious Prosecution

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the what-goes-around dept.

The Courts 337

DaveAtFraud writes "Tanya Anderson, the single mother from Oregon previously sued by the RIAA — which dropped the case just before losing a summary judgement — is now suing the RIAA and their hired snoop Safenet for malicious prosecution. (Safenet was formerly known as MediaSentry.) Anderson is asserting claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. A reader at Groklaw has already picked up that she is seeking to have the RIAA forfeit the copyrights in question as part of the settlement (search the page for '18.6-7')."

cancel ×

337 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Give up the copyrights? (5, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643575)

Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country?

Is she a milf ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643601)

Anybody got a link to a pick ? Name sounds like a swedish pornstar.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (4, Insightful)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643609)

My uneducated guess would be that giving up the copyrights would be a publicity stunt, and that she's actually looking to settle out of court.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (4, Interesting)

robbiethefett (1047640) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643659)

whatever the reasons, i hope she wins. if she wins the case, the riaa is done for. if she settles out of court, they will be bled dry by similar cases. either way, wethepeople win, and the evil empire begins to crumble. yes, i called the riaa an evil empire. and here comes the corporo-fascist trolls to flame me to death... (see below)

Re:Give up the copyrights? (5, Funny)

the_weasel (323320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643707)

WVRYX HHYRE THREF MUNGE 1H4UI...

Oh, sorry. I thought you said Crypto-Fascist. My mistake.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (2, Funny)

f1055man (951955) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644371)

This story made me happy. Your comment made me very happy. Damn, I wish I had mod points.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (5, Funny)

ShaneThePain (929627) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644229)

stop using "fascist" incorrectly. Its rude to all the true fascists, like myself.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (1)

Bastardchyld (889185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643879)

Oh so she is using the RIAA's own model against them?

Well without the cloak and dagger stuff that is.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (4, Interesting)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644215)

Well, when a system is as corrupted as the justice system is, sometimes the only way to beat it is to use it. If we can be sued and forced into a settlement, why can't we do the same to the jerk-offs who do did it to us? Imagine the dollar signs in lawyers across the country when they learn that they can be part of a settlement with a major record label.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643615)

Probably not. But asking for is bumps up the stakes and the value of any future settlement.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (1)

the_weasel (323320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643619)

No. Which makes me think this is maybe a negotiating tactic towards an out of court settlement.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (3, Funny)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643625)

Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country? She is disabled, not retarded.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (1)

Bastardchyld (889185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643889)

Mod parent up. That is the funniest thing I have heard all week. Although it is early in the week.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (1)

ad0le (684017) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643635)

Any precident she can set will have an effect on future cases. Even if she's doing it for personal gain. This could be a win / win for consumers.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (2)

BlueMikey (1112869) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643637)

And doesn't she know that copyrights are worth $150k a pop per person to these people?! Considering that the RIAA thinks everyone in the country listens to every single song, that's a punishment of something like $50 trillion per copyright!

Re:Give up the copyrights? (5, Interesting)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644281)

Which also puts the RIAA on the spot to provide a "reasonable" valuation on copyrights for the purposes of settling. Watching the RIAA place one value on copyrights for defending a legal action and a different value for prosecuting could prove entertaining.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (4, Insightful)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643657)

I don't think so. The pie is high now - I think it is intended to show that the RIAA isn't the only party capable of an all-out offense. As most of the claims by the RIAA are frivolous anyway, this might put the claims in perspective, at least in the eyes of the public and hopefully in the eyes of the judge. It isn't about winning with this point, it's about making the legal system reconsider some well-defined boundries in what is acceptable for the RIAA to do.

I hope it works (:

I'm beginning to think the tide is turning on the RIAA.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19644151)

The tide isn't turning. There is, however, hope that the tide might someday turn.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (0)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643743)

Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country?

More importantly, does she think that a trade association owns the copyrights?

Re:Give up the copyrights? (3, Informative)

Kythe (4779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643795)

More importantly, does she think that a trade association owns the copyrights?

I believe she's suing the individual companies.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643799)

More importantly, does she think that a trade association owns the copyrights?

Even more importantly, do you know how to RTFA?

Re:Give up the copyrights? (4, Informative)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643837)

She's suing each company individually as well as the RIAA itself.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643845)

My guess is no she doesn't.
If you had bothered to RTFA before posting you would have noticed that she is suing Atlantic Records.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (3, Insightful)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643759)

Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country?

If they broke the law then yes. She expects the courts to uphold the law. Besides, since they are so rich, they can afford to pay when they violate the laws they claim to follow.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (3, Insightful)

jombeewoof (1107009) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644401)

Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country?

If they broke the law then yes. She expects the courts to uphold the law. Besides, since they are so rich, they can afford to pay when they violate the laws they claim to follow.
Spelling correction,
you meant to say
Besides, since they are so rich, they can afford to pay when they violate the laws they write.

It's an easy enough mistake to make.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (1)

Kythe (4779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643819)

Yes, I think she seriously does. If the court upholds the law, that expectation isn't unrealistic.

And sweet justice, it would be.

How to avoid a jury trial/force a settlement? (1)

Windcatcher (566458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643849)

Perhaps this is a tactic to force a settlement, since every one of their tactics would be placed before a jury, in an atmosphere where they could hardly be despised more. I doubt the RIAA could actually lose the copyrights since I doubt they own them in the first place, but it would be interesting if she expanded the suit to include the owners on whose behalf the RIAA operates. All I know is, if I'm a juror, those copyrights are G-O-N-E. How willing is the RIAA to take the chance that a juror who decides against them won't be persuasive enough with 8 of 11 other peers? (I presume it's a civil suit)

Re:How to avoid a jury trial/force a settlement? (4, Insightful)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643881)

All I know is, if I'm a juror, those copyrights are G-O-N-E

Which is why you would never be on the jury, because you have already made up your mind about the outcome.

Re:How to avoid a jury trial/force a settlement? (1)

Windcatcher (566458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643933)

Not to worry...it's not in my district. The question is, how many other people who are in that district bear animosity toward them? There's a reason people are generally advised to not burn bridges.

Re:How to avoid a jury trial/force a settlement? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643937)

She's suing the music company, not the RIAA. Summary is wrong, as usual.

Re:How to avoid a jury trial/force a settlement? (2, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644311)

She's suing the music company, not the RIAA. Summary is wrong, as usual.
Try again. She is suing the music companies and the RIAA and Safenet (formerly MediaSentry)

Re:How to avoid a jury trial/force a settlement? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644063)

Perhaps this is a tactic to force a settlement, since every one of their tactics would be placed before a jury, in an atmosphere where they could hardly be despised more

You have a remarkably naive notion of the jury pool, which is typically middle-aged, middle class and small-C conservative. It is the function of the judge to narrow the issues in dispute, define them for the jury - and to de-fang the advocate who plays too much to emotion.

All I know is, if I'm a juror, those copyrights are G-O-N-E.

You will N-E-V-E-R get the chance to decide that issue. You will only get the chance to decide the narrow factual questions presented by the judge - and the verdict will likely have to be unanimous.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644141)

Yes.

Courts are judges. Judges are either elected, or appointed by elected officials. And they LOVE smacking corporate America for the little guy. The only thing they like more is doing it for children.

Re:Give up the copyrights? (1)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644367)

Hey if they are going to try and decapitate you financially, turn about is only fair play.
After all the goal is to get them to settle right? A literal taste of their own medicine because
if it even looks like it will go south for them they stand to loose so much money.
I say bully for her! She should turn the tables on the RIAA so they know how it feels!

The RIAA don't have copyrights.. (1, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643611)

at least not on the music.. Perhaps we should stop playing their game and NAME THE MUSIC COMPANIES who are suing these people.

Re:The RIAA don't have copyrights.. (4, Informative)

rossz (67331) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643651)

She's suing Atlantic Records. I guess you didn't RTFA.

Yes,the slashdot summary should have made that clear.

YOU SUCK! (-1, Offtopic)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643763)

She's suing Atlantic Records. I guess you didn't RTFA.
Not only that, but YOU SUCK! [uncyclopedia.org]

Re:The RIAA don't have copyrights.. (1)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644283)

Sorry. You read something that looks like it's of interest and you try to summarize why it's interesting in a sentence or three. She is suing all of the members of the RIAA which is another way of saying she's suing the RIAA.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:The RIAA don't have copyrights.. (2, Funny)

Speedracer1870 (1041248) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643699)

As in Music Company #1-14 as defendants? John Doe was getting rather old anyways.

Re:The RIAA don't have copyrights.. (1)

mythar (1085839) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644269)

oh, shut up. everybody knows who the music companies are that make up the riaa. well, sort of... [riaa.com]

Hope she has money (3, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643631)

Because I think the RIAA can afford to keep this in legal limbo land for a while. Even so, it's nice to see someone go after the RIAA on RICO because there have been instances where they have crossed lines in my opinion. That being said, giving up the copyrights aren't going to happen because the RIAA doesn't hold them. They just represent the folks who do.

What really needs to happen is to get a couple of the hawkish Attourny Generals, like NY's, involved and looking into the RIAA's actions. They, actually, have some power to do something about the RIAA's tactics.

Re:Hope she has money (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643667)

Hope she sets up a place where people can donate cash for the fight.

I'll give $10.00 to anyone that sues the RIAA about their mafia tactics.

I am sure another 10,000 people would do the same and yes a hundred grand will go a long way in fighting organized crime like the RIAA.

Re:Hope she has money (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643825)

I'll give $10.00 to anyone that sues the RIAA about their mafia tactics.
I am sure another 10,000 people would do the same and yes a hundred grand will go a long way in fighting organized crime like the RIAA.

I am sure there is a lawyer who will take your money - and "take" seems the appropriate word here. Judges - appellate judges - do not throw around words like "organized crime" as carelessly as the geek.

Re:Hope she has money (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19644203)

If you do not see the RIAA tactics as extortion, strong-arming, and other organized crime tactics, you are either someone who was recently unfrozen for the past 30 years or socially challenged.

It IS organized crime plain and simple. Just because they abuse the courts and lawyers to strong arm and extort money out of people does not make it anything different. They are stopping short of outright murder, but I bet that if you leave them unchecked long enough that will be on the plate soon, people "accidentally" killed during a RIAA raid.

I strongly suggest you study the basics of right and wrong, Obviousally your parents did not teach you those basics.

RIAA and Record companies ARE in FACT organized criminals. They should be put away for their crimes against America, their abuses of taxpayer resources, and their outright extortion of families. They know for a fact that what they are doing is wrong, they are doing it because it's profitable.

Just like drug dealers, mafia bosses and roving gangs in major cities. The Executives are no better than the leaders of the Crips or Bloods.

Re:Hope she has money (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643953)

...and your ten dollars will purchase three and three quarters minutes of a lawyer's time

Re:Hope she has money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19644121)

Actually only the shitty lawyers charge that much. The good lawyers the ones that are worth a damn are far cheaper as they fight for justice and what is right.

The asshole fuckers that caused the fucked up mess that we have now charge the $300+ an hour.

There is a reason that everyone likes the joke, "what do you call 100 lawyers dead at the bottom of a lake? A good start."

So yes, you are right, for the worthless piece of shit fuckers that cant do their job right? yes it will cost that much. the honest ones charge much less.

Re:Hope she has money (1)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644189)

I'm in

Re:Hope she has money (1)

AnonymousCactus (810364) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644347)

long way = 10,000 / $250 = 400 hours = 10 lawyers for a week = not nearly enough

Re:Hope she has money (5, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643677)

She's not going after RIAA as such, she's going after everyone that makes up the RIAA, read the article: "Atlantic, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG and BMG -- the RIAA itself, the Settlement Support Center, and SafeNet" It looks like she plans to sue them to hell and beyond for all kinds of illegal behavior when it comes to how they handled the case against her.

Re:Hope she has money (1, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643891)

She's not going after RIAA as such, she's going after everyone that makes up the RIAA, read the article: "Atlantic, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG and BMG -- the RIAA itself, the Settlement Support Center, and SafeNet"

I'll take it as a general rule that it is better to go into court with a rifle than a shotgun.

Malice - in the legal sense - can be damn hard to prove.

Re:Hope she has money (4, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644079)

I'll take it as a general rule that it is better to go into court with a rifle than a shotgun.

Nope. It's better go in with a shotgun and a carton of videotape. Rifles are for D.A's, programmers, and writers. When you're wronged, you want to slap as many people as you can.

Re:Hope she has money (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644245)

When you're wronged, you want to slap as many people as you can.

It is often the attorney's job to tell you that what can be done is not what you want to do. The D.A. choses the rifle because he is paid to hit the target - not stroke his client's ego.

Re:Hope she has money (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644365)

She's not going after RIAA as such, she's going after everyone that makes up the RIAA, read the article: "Atlantic, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG and BMG -- the RIAA itself, the Settlement Support Center, and SafeNet"
As you can see from the part of the quote above that I bolded, she is also suing "the RIAA itself", as well as the record companies, etc.

Re:Hope she has money (1)

rossz (67331) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643883)

It was Atlantic Records who originally sued her and that's who she is suing back. They most definitely do hold a shitload of copyrights.

You should RTFA.

Finally someone brings up RICO (5, Insightful)

badfrog (45310) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643695)

I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought the RICO act into this. It's what finally stopped DirecTV from suing everyone that bought a Smartcard reader.

Re:Finally someone brings up RICO (4, Insightful)

ad0le (684017) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643767)

Keep in mind, in civil cases (such as this one), there are many hurdles in obtaining a judgment in correlation with the RICO act. Point being, it's not that easy. The RIAA is more concerned with their technique for accusing people remaining legally sound than being pummeled with a RICO civil case.

This woman should just leave it alone... (1, Troll)

jorghis (1000092) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643723)

Im sure noone else will defend the RIAA here, so I may as well be the one to point out the obvious.

From what I understand here the RIAA didnt really want to bankrupt this woman. They really just wanted to assert their IP rights, they typically dont want whatever money would be awarded from a trial against some random individual. The cost of running this whole operation dramatically exceeds whatever they could make in settlements and verdicts. They arent doing it to extort as some claim, they are doing it to deter people from copying their stuff. They dont need the publicity of forcing a woman and her kid to be homeless. Despite what groklaw may say they arent going after people that they dont have fairly good cases against. (and you know perfectly well there are tons of people who they can make good cases against)

This woman should just leave it alone, she already caught a break with the charges being dropped.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643745)

nice troll. ;)

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (0, Troll)

jorghis (1000092) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643781)

Its not intended as a troll. What is wrong with my arguments? Anything pro-RIAA == troll around here?

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643867)

You're new here, aren't you?

I would have probably modded you down too... (1, Insightful)

LinDVD (986467) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644333)

The RIAA has gone after all kinds of people, dead and alive, using techniques that simply border on unethical. Corporate bullying, in some cases. In addition, copyright infringement isn't theft. It may be a crime, but it is not the same thing as physical theft-the RIAA always claims it is.

I think I would have modded you troll or overrated if I had mod points based on your original comment.

There may be something positive to say about the RIAA, but this particular subject isn't one of them. Oh, and neither are their efforts to attempt to deep-six internet radio, and then there is the DMCA...yeah, the RIAA doesn't have a lot of good karma, IMHO.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643773)

The problem is that the ends don't justify the means. You can't break the law to uphold it.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (1, Insightful)

jorghis (1000092) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643833)

And how are they breaking the law? They are going through the proper legal channels. They have lots of expensive lawyers making sure they are complying with the law, and despite what you may read on Groklaw, they really arent doing anything illegal. I suppose you could try to make some argument about how looking at what someone is sharing on a P2P network is illegal somehow, but I think thats a huge stretch. I am sure there are some other technicalities that I am unaware of that could be stretched if you really tried hard to make it look like they were technically violating the law somehow. But at the very least they are complying with the spirit of copyright law imho.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (5, Insightful)

kentmartin (244833) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643969)

I am not American, nor a lawyer, but my understanding is that they are doing a couple of things which very much violate the spirit of the law.

First, they file John Doe lawsuits, then use the discovery privileges they attain as a result of having those lawsuits filed to gather more information. As soon as the necessary information is gathered, the drop the original lawsuit (and offer settlement or go to court for a real lawsuit etc). The important thing here is that the John Doe lawsuit is never meant to be anything other than an abuse of process to give them wider investigative powers - definitely a violation of the spirit of the law.

Secondly, you get a knock on the door with a lawsuit from a multimillion (billion?) dollar company with the lawyers to match. Whether you've done something wrong or not, the temptation will be to buy the next couple of years of your life back by forking over 2 or 3 grand - the alternative is to fight for a year or 2 in court at great risk and expense... I think we'd all accept that the US litigation system favours he with the deepest pockets - so right or wrong, you still stand a shot of losing.. they know most folks will not take the risk for a couple of grand - that makes it extortion as plain as the hairs on my arse.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644043)

But at the very least they are complying with the spirit of copyright law imho.

HA! If you believe the RIAA and related organizations give a flying fuck about the spirit of copyright law, you're sadly mistaken at best. The spirit of copyright law can be found in our Constitution, Article I, Section 8, and it has suffered a number of severe blows thanks to the likes of these organizations; though to be honest, the damage was done long before the RIAA started suing P2P filesharers.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643789)

The punishment should fit the crime. Fail to keep that in mind and you've just lost your moral high ground and you've become a mirror of what you think you are "defending yourself" against.

For all of these cases, statutory damages should be off the table. They are infact a form of extortion that represent values that are grossly inappropriate for the given accused.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643911)

The punishment IS what fits the crime. You are looking at it as a REWARD for the person bringing suit. It is, in fact, a PUNISHMENT for the person defending the suit. If RIAA loses the case and then is "punished" with a meager fine, they will have no real incentive to change their extortionist business tactics. MONEY or the loss thereof, is all these megaconglomerates can understand.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (5, Insightful)

TimHunter (174406) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643803)

Hmmm...I have mod points, but instead of just clicking Troll I'll assume you're serious and respond that way. Read the FA and tell me this isn't about extortion, plain and simple. It is also about deterrence, in the sense of the RIAA trying to deter people from defending themselves against baseless charges. The RIAA have no case whatsoever against this woman. Never did. At this point they're simply protecting their techniques for suing anybody anytime on the flimsiest of evidence. This woman has good lawyers and they recognize that she is not only innocent, she's *so* innocent that her case has good chances for setting precedent. With a good, solid precedent, other lawyers with other clients will have an easier time defending themselves.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (0)

jorghis (1000092) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643871)

It is not extortion because extortion is done to make money. There is absolutely no chance the RIAA is making any money with all the legal fees they are spending here. Typically they ask people to settle for very small amounts. Lawyers cost hundreds of thousands or even millions just to hire a few.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (4, Insightful)

Kythe (4779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643895)

It is not extortion because extortion is done to make money.

It is, indeed. And threatening people who can't defend themselves unless they pay $4000 sounds to me an awful lot like a moneymaking scheme.

Just because it serves the dual purpose of "deterring" copyright violation doesn't mean it isn't extortion.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644187)

threatening people who can't defend themselves unless they pay $4000 sounds to me an awful lot like a moneymaking scheme.

most civil disputes begin and end in an offer of settlement. extortion doesn't have the same meaning to a judge as it does to the geek.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (2, Insightful)

buxton2k (228339) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644315)

Hell, old school Mafia protection rackets also serve the purpose of "deterring" people. Deterring them from living their lives in peace without paying money to the Mafia.

"Such a nice shop you've got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it, you know what I mean?"

And since the RIAA lawsuit's boil down to:

"Such a nice house you've got there. Be a shame if you were to lose it in, say, a lawsuit by a multinational cartel against your family. Now, how about an out of court settlement for a few thousand, and you never talk to anyone about this, capische?"

it's basically the same thing.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (1)

pregister (443318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643963)

Lawyers cost hundreds of thousands or even millions just to hire a few.
Yeah? Law school here I come!

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (4, Insightful)

Bastardchyld (889185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644059)

Keep in mind that the way the RIAA and the music corporations are setup the RIAA will not make money. They will be operated at a loss. The music companies are the ones awarded the settlements since the hold the copyrights. Besides lawyers are relatively cheap when they are on salary. Consider that once the lawyers are on the books they might as well be suing people so they can bring in some money. So while you are correct that the RIAA is not "making money" that is not their purpose. They are there to make money for the record labels. They even say so on their site "The RIAA is an organization committed to helping the music business thrive." http://www.riaa.com/faq.php [riaa.com]

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643809)

I wish there was a +1 Brave As F*** mod.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643813)

You have got to be kidding me. They didn't 'mean' to bankrupt her? She got off 'lucky'?

Man, you are a real piece of work!

LMAO!

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (4, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643823)

Despite what groklaw may say they arent going after people that they dont have fairly good cases against.

Groklaw is irrelevant. The RIAA were dead wrong in this case, and now she wants them to pay for their mistake. She has every right to do so. That's how the legal system works in the US.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (3, Informative)

Kythe (4779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643859)

From what I understand here the RIAA didnt really want to bankrupt this woman. They really just wanted to assert their IP rights, they typically dont want whatever money would be awarded from a trial against some random individual.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but like hell they didn't. It's pretty clear these guys see the "threaten 'em all into paying" strategy as a moneymaker and a way to set an example. Both interests are served by bankrupting average Joes and Janes.

They knew, exactly what they were doing. And IMHO they deserve to pay the price, far more than some kid who innocently downloads a song and gets taken to the cleaners for $4000 neither they nor their parents can afford.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (1, Interesting)

jorghis (1000092) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643943)

Every time I read something like this I cant help but roll my eyes. 4000 dollars may sound like a lot of money to the average guy on the street, but think about how much they are spending running this whole legal operation. You have to pay people to investigate it, people to organize contacting everyone involved, and then hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in legal fees for anyone who doesnt immediately settle. Any quick back the envelope math calculation should immediatly reveal that this operation is running deep in the red. They cannot possibly be doing this to make a quick buck from 'extortion'.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19644095)

Perhaps you don't realize that a lot of these operations aren't run by actual lawyers. Any monkey can cut and paste a robo-litigation, and the actual paid lawyers don't get involved unless it hits a courtroom.

That's the insidious beauty of it all...

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644137)

It should also be clear to anyone with a brain that this is what the RIAA means when they say they are going to "educate" the public. I already know a lot of people who won't go near P2P programs because of these tactics.. regardless of the fact that we're in another country and the RIAA don't "service our area". The education program is working.

Mod Parent UP (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643877)

Just because he holds a different opinion doesn't mean he is "trolling" or trying to "bait" people into a flame war.

Can't you can disagree with someone without trying to supress their opinion?

Re:Mod Parent UP - AGREED (1)

Bastardchyld (889185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644089)

I completely DISAGREE 100% with the OP, however parent is spot on for wanting him to be modded up. He is clear and concise with his points and he deserves mod points regardless of the rarity of his opinions in this forum.

Re:Mod Parent UP (1)

aeschenkarnos (517917) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644249)

There is a difference between opinion and fact. It is my opinion that chocolate tastes better than vanilla. You may well differ on that, and fair enough if you do. It is not my opinion that 2+2=4; that is a fact. If I was to assert that "2+2=5", and try to put up a figleaf that "it's my opinion", that doesn't stop me from being wrong.

Re:Mod Parent UP (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644277)

And that doesn't mean that anyone has a right to supress your wrong opinion. They should embrace it and use it as a good example of how poor your math skills are.. not try to hide it like they are afraid you might be right.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (2)

shoemilk (1008173) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643949)

This post is not flamebait nor troll. It's called a debate. Let's debate it and have a discussion not a "The RIAA sucks" party. This person is not very correct, but let's use it as a chance to educate, not obliviate.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (5, Insightful)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644075)

This woman should just leave it alone, she already caught a break with the charges being dropped.
WTF? They sued her and tried to ruin her life even after they knew they had no credible evidence against her and you think it was her lucky day when they dropped their case right before the judge was about to throw it out of the court anyway on summary judgment?

If someone intentionally runs you down with their car are you lucky if they run away when the cops arrive? (for the metaphorically impaired: I'm equating the cops arriving with the impending summary judgments that led the MAFIAA to drop their case). Wouldn't you try to sue them for you medical bills? How is that any different from her suing them for the legal bills they caused her to incur to defend herself against their bogus charges?

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644299)

Wow. Okay.

From what I understand here the RIAA didnt really want to bankrupt this woman.

No, they just picked someone who didn't have the money, and gave them a choice between losing some money, or losing more. Without really providing any evidence -- notice the part where they dropped the case right before having a summary judgment issued against them. They knew the case had no merit.

The cost of running this whole operation dramatically exceeds whatever they could make in settlements and verdicts.

Right, but they hope they're going to scare people into submission, make some money on people who roll over, and cause piracy to go down by making "examples."

Despite what groklaw may say they arent going after people that they dont have fairly good cases against.

Then why haven't they won? They keep losing. They were going to lose here, and abandoned ship beforehand.

It's not that "pro-RIAA = troll" it's that you're missing the actual legal proceedings that have went on, like many pro-SCO posters did. They don't have a case. They keep losing precisely because they have crap for evidence. Have they had any major victories in court? No. Have they had major losses? Yes.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone... (1)

jeff4747 (256583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644393)

Despite what groklaw may say they arent going after people that they dont have fairly good cases against.

Wow are you wrong. You should read up on this case a little more before defending the RIAA's behavior.

They most definitely did not have a good case against her. In fact, they had no evidence to back up their claims, and were about to have the suit tossed by the judge. They may have had enough evidence to file the suit and start discovery, but that discovery process destroyed their evidence.

Rights not Copyrights (5, Informative)

Rotworm (649729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643753)

The article reads the RIAA would lose the rights [groklaw.net] , not the copyrights.

Re:Rights not Copyrights (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644331)

Yeah, unless Copyright Abuse was one of the charges, I fail to see how it would be usual to forfeit copyrights.

It's a nice thought though.

This reminds me of..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19643847)

.... the World Wrestling Federation vs. the World Wildlife Fund, and how the Wildlife Fund turned the tables on the suit brought against them and got Wrestling beaten into submission. I wish Tanya all the luck in the world.

Woo Hoo! (0)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643887)

Go get 'em girl...

donations (1)

kbaud (1001076) | more than 7 years ago | (#19643967)

Is there any place I can donate to her legal expenses? I have already googled for such a site, no luck. A lot of people will benefit from this decision, at least we could contribute a small amount.

One possibility (2, Interesting)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644009)

As many have already said this will be very expensive. What if the idea is to start the suit with lots of publicity and then get others to join and gain class action status? The more that the tactics get exposed to the public the better chance of an outcry getting relief for everyone. It really boils down to a publicity fight. If people believe that the RIAA is defending artists they like then the real issues won't matter. Convince them that making a mix tape of any music might get you prosecuted and things change. Education of the masses is the only way to solve the problem.

Re:One possibility (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644139)

What if the idea is to start the suit with lots of publicity and then get others to join and gain class action status?

It can be really, really, difficult to successfully frame a lawsuit as a class action.

uw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19644127)

I am a student at the University of Washington in Seattle. I just checked my email. Turns out the RIAA will be sending several UW students those lovely "settlement" letters. I was wondering when those would come to our school. So much for DC++ sharing anymore...

The RIAA want to pray very hard... (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644235)

...that they don't lose this case. Having it on record as being successfully prosecuted under RICO would solidify and make official their reputation as a criminal organisation.

It would also be a major victory for piracy in general, because it would mean that if the RIAA want to call pirates criminals, the playing field would then be level...which would also make the RIAA hypocrites.

She's going to win, too (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644345)

I just read through the filing. The RIAA is in big trouble here.

Most of the facts in the case have already been litigated, and the RIAA lost. The counterclaims arise from facts already on the record. The RIAA's actions are a matter of public record. And they did a whole range of things ranging from really dumb to possibly criminal.

First, their investigation unit, SafeNet/MediaSentry, isn't a licensed private investigator. So they don't have any of the immunities a private investigator does. Normally, law firms use licensed private investigators for their investigations, but the RIAA didn't bother. Bad move.

Second, there's a clear case for fraudulent debt collection. It's already been established in court that the RIAA's claims were false, and that they knew they were false, yet they continued collection efforts.

On the harassment front, the RIAA's representatives apparently attempted to contact a 10 year old child's elementary school under false pretenses, pretending to be a grandparent. The court had to issue a protective order prohibiting the RIAA from contacting the kid. That's going to be tough to explain to a jury.

There's more, but the RIAA is going to have a very tough time in court on this one.

C'mon, I want a poll: (2, Interesting)

throatmonster (147275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19644391)

Who predicted, when the RIAA began their lawsuit strategy, predicted that it would backfire in the long run? Please reference your previous slashdot posts as evidence.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?