More RIAA Bull****

Remove all ads!

This is no secret, but it's not like it's something officially talked about. Anyway, here's about how the RIAA makes up bogus claims just to extort money from people fearing legal fees and being ready to settle out of court:

Few of the RIAA's estimated 20,000 lawsuits against file traders have seen the inside of a courtroom, as the majority of users, fearing legal fees or a loss, settle out of court. The RIAA of course anticipates this, so many of their cases consist of little more than an IP address, which as we've discussed frequently isn't specific evidence of individual guilt. This half-assed discovery process has led to a number of suits being dropped, and it caused the RIAA some PR grief last summer when they decided to sue a PC-illiterate Long Island mother of five for sharing music. Already $24,000 in debt before her trial even began, Patricia Santangelo became an Internet celebrity of sorts by deciding to actually fight the record industry. Her story gained traction when she lost her first lawyer and proclaimed she'd fight the RIAA by herself -- leading to a flurry of legal donations from RIAA-loathing groups and individuals the world over. Last summer we wondered if the RIAA would eventually cut their losses in this case and run; instead they began investigating her children, ultimately filing suit against the kids after getting the daughter and a neighbor to admit to using Kazaa under oath.

Today the RIAA dropped the lawsuit against Santangelo herself, though Santangelo's first lawyer Ray Beckerman confirms for us the suit against her children now moves forward -- after her first battle drained the family coffers. Obviously forcing cash-strapped American moms to pony up tens of thousands of dollars to force the industry to do their homework is absurd, and as we've noted there's no real punishment for when the RIAA screws up. Even better, the RIAA is trying to have this case dropped in such a way that they won't be held financially liable (despite basically admitting they sued the wrong person), and so the door's held open in case they want to sue Santangelo for the same thing down the road. Of course it's important to remember it's perfectly fine to share music illegally if your father is a wealthy music industry executive.

The original at Techdirt

And here is about what happens when your dad is a leading music industry honcho. You don't exactly drop out of school or pay thousands of dollars:

Edgar Bronfman Jr., back in 2000 was one of the first record label execs (he headed Seagrams, which at the time owned Universal) to come up with the idea of suing Napster and all its users. Since he was eventually forced out, and later had to buy Warner Music to get back into the business, the idea that he kicked off has certainly taken hold with thousands upon thousands of lawsuits filed by the RIAA. All too often, we've heard about cases where the RIAA would claim that whoever owned the broadband account where file sharing occurred was liable for any infringement. That allowed them to sue parents who had done absolutely nothing wrong, and claim that they were still responsible for the actions of their kids who may have been sharing unauthorized files. Given all that, it's interesting to note that Edgar Bronfman Jr. is now admitting that his kids have been downloading unauthorized content. Well, actually, it's not entirely clear. He says, "I'm fairly certain that they have, and I'm fairly certain that they've suffered the consequences." He then declines to explain what those consequences are -- but we'd assume it doesn't involve huge fines, being told to drop out of school or any other such nastiness that the RIAA reserves for all those other families they're suing. However, if the RIAA really believes that parents are liable for the actions of their kids, and Bronfman has just admitted that his kids have been file sharing, shouldn't they slap one of their famed extortion letters on him? He can certainly afford it. Thanks only to Skype's wealthy founders bailing Kazaa out of a lawsuit by paying $100 million to record labels, Warner Music actually turned a profit last quarter. Without the Kazaa money, however, they'd continue the company's trend of losing cash every which way -- but apparently it hasn't occurred to them that their legal strategy isn't helping business very much.

The original at Techdirt

And now more about dropping out of school, as your interest has likely been captured. No?

The RIAA has made quite the business out of shaking down folks they accuse of uploading music. This has been covered at length before, but they basically send a "settlement offer" with each lawsuit. The offer says (more or less) "pay $3500 and this goes away." They also make it clear that just taking the case to court will likely cost more than $3500 in legal fees, suggesting it's not even worth fighting it -- which in some parts of the world sounds very much like extortion. Plenty of people have done the math and suggested that this little business of suing their biggest fans has turned into a nice little profit center for the industry. Digg is pointing to the case of one woman, a student at MIT, who is trying to talk to the RIAA after being offered just such a settlement. When she points out that she's a poor college student, the RIAA rep kindly suggests that perhaps dropping out of school will make it easier to pay off the fine. Now, from the story, it's unclear whether or not the student is guilty of uploading files. If she did it, then it's certainly her responsibility to face whatever punishment comes her way. However, on the spectrum of punishment fitting the crime, does it seem reasonable to ask a student to give up her college education for the sake of paying off the recording industry for the "crime" of helping others find music they might like?

The original at Techdirt

Oh well, finally a bit about extortion:

We've covered the story of DirecTV suing anyone who ordered a smart card reader and telling them they should just settle since it would be cheaper than fighting the lawsuit (even if they did nothing wrong with the smart card reader). Some of the accused have realized that this seems quite a bit like extortion ("just pay up, it'll be less trouble...") and have sued DirecTV with racketeering. Now, one woman is saying that this same argument can be equally applied to the RIAA and their lawsuits against those accused of sharing file illegally. She's now charging the RIAA with racketeering under RICO laws for trying to extort money out of her. It's a tough claim - because the RIAA's obvious response is that she (or, as she claims, her daughter) was doing something illegal. Still, the method of dumping thousands of lawsuits and then offering to settle them for a few thousand rather than going through the trouble of a lawsuit does sound an awful lot like extortion.

The original at Techdirt

Filing poorly substantiated lawsuits and offering a block rate of $3500 per settlement and saying just starting to defend yourself would be more expensive is extortion. Sadly, lawyer fees are so big and the system allows the RIAA to claim such high "compensations", so indeed people who have had even incidental contact with Kazaa will often agree just out of fear. Or even completely random people who can't afford lawyers.

Way to go, champions of justice!

BTW, don't you think they should pay, and I mean pay, and really pay, for suing the wrong people?

Personally, I think they are verging on criminal conduct. I don't know all the details, but I think it wouldn't be that hard to make an extortion case out of it where I live.

 

Wow, I was an idiotic dickbag at 14, cannot believe I said what this thing said. Ugh, I hate past me.

 

well, your a lawyer chev, whats your view on possible counter suits?

 

I think sharing files without making profit shouldn't be a crime, it is bull****. You suppose the laws not to be bull****, but actually they are. I wish these *******s in RIAA suffer.

And here, if you win a lawsuit, all your expenses are afforded by the loser. Is it the same in the other parts of the world? If so, defending yourself may be a good idea, if you are sure you are innocent and the system of justice works correctly.

 

Well, Argohir, that's the point, actually, the loser pays it all. If you were to take part in a lawsuit that's going to cost millions all things considered, would you do it if you weren't 100% sure of your innocence? In these days, no one can be entirely sure he's going to win, especially if he indeed has taken part in filesharing. It's understandable that many would get nervous and choose to pay less rather than pay it all.

Not to say that I'm defending RIAA in any amount, I despise them just like everyone else.

 

Then, it can lead to things like "you can only listen to your music CDs" type things. Filesharing is not evil and I assume you don't defend RIAA.

Thanks for the information. I already said:

 

@Shoshino: Losers pay all in lawsuits pretty much everywhere, or just up to a reasonable limit in some laws - e.g. here if you give two sacks of gold to your lawyer for representing you in your cat ownership trial and the standard fee in cat ownership cases is one sack of gold, you may get only one sack of gold from the loser. As for frivolous lawsuits, they are handled differently in every legal system and I don't know how it works in the US, apart from the fact that lawyers are fined already be the judge who throws out cases for tampering with evidence, witnesses etc and can also be sued by the defendants. Hmmm... might want to read this one, but I'd rather DMC or Sir Belly said something instead of me. They are American lawyers, while my system is much different and I've only learnt tiny bits of the common law / equity based ones. I suppose RIAA lawyers could be targetted for a greater effect than just the RIAA. Then lawyers would think twice before going to courts with crappy evidence and bizarre claims.

 

I ****ing hate the RIAA. I seriously hope every one of those pigs dies.

 

Sort of what of Saber said, but with swearing and more detailed forms of death

 

@dmc: Here in Poland we have some symbolic (and sometimes less symbolic) fees for even starting a case, there are some formalities and the loser pays the fees. This is supposed to hit back the lawsuit-happy people. Additionally, if you sue someone and you win because he instantly accepts your claim, but he had given you no reason to sue (e.g. you sue him for his debts without first asking him to pay back), then you will pay the fees as well. Before, some people would preventively sue their spouses for divorce with the plaintiff's exclusive fault just to save on the fees.