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!

Class Action Initiated Against RIAA

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the bandwagon-starting-to-roll dept.

The Courts 315

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Ever since the RIAA's litigation campaign began in 2003, many people have been suggesting a class action against the RIAA. Tanya Andersen, in Oregon, has taken them up on it. The RIAA's case against this disabled single mother, Atlantic v. Andersen, has received attention in the past, for her counterclaims against the RIAA including claims under Oregon's RICO statute, the RIAA's hounding of her young daughter for a face-to-face deposition, the RIAA's eventual dropping of the case 'with prejudice,' and her lawsuit against the RIAA for malicious prosecution, captioned Andersen v. Atlantic. Now she's turned that lawsuit into a class action. The amended complaint seeking class action status (PDF) sues for negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy."

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

About time someone did this (5, Insightful)

dhanav (313625) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264413)

Now is the time for all those who complained about RIAA to join in and take this to a good conclusion.

Re:About time someone did this (4, Interesting)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264567)

I agree, but how? NewYorkCountryLawyer, where can we direct our support and/or funds???

Re:About time someone did this (4, Informative)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264575)

Unless you were approached by the RIAA, the most you can do is cheer them on [wikipedia.org] .

Re:About time someone did this (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264933)

There's always the possibility of sending money. Donations. Nobody can keep me from giving my money to whoever I please.

Re:About time someone did this (0, Offtopic)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265037)

I wouldn't suggest any donations to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. :)

Re:About time someone did this (0, Offtopic)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265289)

But I heard they have a quite wonderful marching band. Do they still play the Stalin organs?

Re:About time someone did this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20265781)

I wouldn't suggest any donations to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. :)

I've given money to organisations on the US "terrorist supporters" list - and I'm proud of it

US neocon new world order fascism can only be stopped if we actively TRY

Re:About time someone did this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20265495)

and if you're like the typical anti-RIAAA whiner, you manage to stop paying any money to the artists for the music too.

Re:About time someone did this (4, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264635)

Agreed. You get the pitchforks, I'll find the torches... and I think some tar and feathers would be in order to... BTW, where is there HQ again? If we can't find that, their lawyers' offices will do...

Re:About time someone did this (2, Informative)

obsolete1349 (969869) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264939)

* EMI - New York and London
* Sony BMG Music Entertainment - New York
* Universal Music Group - Santa Monica, CA and New York
* Warner Music Group - New York

List of RIAA member labels [wikipedia.org] for more information.

Let's get those bastards.

I disagree. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20264875)

I am very proud of the RIAA. They have proven that some people still actually care about protecting intellectual property (copyrights in this case). I have written many articles supporting the RIAA and encouraging students to purchase music. None of the high school students or college students think critically about their downloading of music illegally. These same students fail to understand why grammar and strong arithmetic skills are important. It seems being a scofflaw goes wih lack of academic excellence. Maybe people who fail to understand the ethical implications of their copyright violations have poor critical thinking skills. Unauthorized copying (downloading) of music really does hurt the record labels and the artists. Most of them don't have any talent, except for Madonna. Even unauthorized copying of the other artists is as bad as stealing from a thrift store. It is trash, but it is still wrong. It is not as tangible as theft of physical items, but it is still illegal and ethically wrong. The RIAA has always worked to advance the quality of music. For example, the RIAA helped establish standards for record cutting so that everyone could enjoy the music. The RIAA knows that unauthorized copying of music is significantly affecting the revenues of the record labels it represents. Unfortunately, it is going to be very hard to stop the mass unauthorized copying with lawsuits and digital rights management due to the nature of computers and people who are ethically challanged. Hardware solutions will likely reduce the amount of unauthorized copying, but it is difficult to secure anything from someone with physical access to the computer. It is really sad to see society so blatantly breaking the law without any care about the ramifications.

Re:I disagree. (1, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265109)

Wall of text crits you for 9,999 damage.

These same students fail to understand why grammar and strong arithmetic skills are important.
Apparently, so do you.

Re:I disagree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20265181)

Huh?

Re:I disagree. (3, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265783)

Wall of text crits you for 9,999 damage.

These same students fail to understand why grammar and strong arithmetic skills are important.
Apparently, so do you.
Erm, what? You're not one of the foolish people who believe that the correct spelling is "grammer" are you?

Slashdot is closed minded. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20265627)

The fact that I was modded down proves Slashdot is full of close minded cowards. These cowards will bury my insightful comment but are too cowardly to reply.

Re:About time someone did this (4, Funny)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265033)

"I come back to you now, at the turn of the tide." --Gandalf

So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264421)

What are your estimates of this case's success?

I'd rather hear it from the expert than Slashdot's myriad self-described ones.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (1)

mazanoid (1114617) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264633)

I say they'll settle out of court for some absurd sum or the riaa will lose it and the RIAA will bounce the check because it'll be that big (considering they get their jollies off of suing 10 year olds for 300,000+$, i can only imagine a class action lawsuit going for at least 300,000$ * number of class action members.

Hurray. The RIAA and MPAA suck. We want better music, and different movies. The cinematography, million dollar actors, and effects could actually be sacrificed if someone came up with a...uhm, plot?

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (5, Insightful)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264691)

$10 says the lawyers are the only winners.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (4, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264807)

>"$10 says the lawyers are the only winners."

As long as the RI.... Record Companies lose, I'm OK with that.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (3, Funny)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264857)

$10 says the lawyers are the only winners.

If you are right, wouldn't that make you a winner too?

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (2, Funny)

MajinBlayze (942250) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264955)

If only lawyers win, and he wins, HE'S A LAWYER
Watch out!! *hides*

(wow, glad I previewed, I almost called him a LAYER)

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (1)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265455)

(wow, glad I previewed, I almost called him a LAYER)

That would actually be LESS of an insult.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (1)

bidule (173941) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264991)

$10 says the lawyers are the only winners.
So, what's wrong with that? All I want is that Atlantic loses badly, the rest I don't care.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (1)

wperry1 (982543) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264995)

$10 says the lawyers are the only winners.
They always are. I've was part of a MS class action a few years ago. The lawyers took home like 1/3 of some multi-million dollar settlement and I got a check in the mail for a dollar something. WP

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (1)

bremstrong (523910) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265361)

Yes, but the RIAA could easily be the loser, even if none of their money makes it to people they've been suing.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (2, Insightful)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265415)

(IMHO) It ain't about the money, its about really hurting the recording industry and all the greedy no-talent clotheshorses with multi-million dollar contracts who produce increasingly non-musical drivel at inflated prices.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (2, Insightful)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265605)

The lawyers may be the only ones to PROFIT from this case, but the fact that a verdict against the RIAA will have ripple effects in hundreds of cases, state and federal laws is something to watch. This case could determine the future of how piracy can be legally tracked, what kind of effort a company is allowed to put in to protect intellectual property, what lines are drawn as far as "harassing prosecution:" is concerned, and more. Even if the RIAA wins the action, on many levels they will also loose, most importantly, many of the methods they use will be once and for all ruled on by a judge and many of their powers will be stripped (and thus so will the powers of many other companies). The simple existence of this case is a great victory for internet freedom fighters. If we're really lucky, this could even legitimize many types of P2P systems, or have whole portions of copywrite and DMCA law changed or erased.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, (1)

scribblej (195445) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265753)

They won't be the /only/ winners if anyone takes you up on that bet. You'll be one too.

Remember I was your friend before you got $10 richer.

Thank god, at last (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264423)

Abuse of legal system for personal profiteering shouldnt be allowed. I wish this class action lawsuit to go as big as paypal one and this time teach MAFIAA bastards and their hound dog of a lawyers some lesson.

Re:Thank god, at last (1)

Rockenreno (573442) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264483)

I completely agree. Putting aside the arguments of eschewing their customers and the problems with illegal downloads, the manner in which the RIAA has been conducting itself is unacceptable. They are not above the law and their abuse of the system needs to be stopped.

More, please! (5, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264437)

sues for negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy.

Can you add sheer stupidity and pigheadedness to that?

Oh, and while you're at it, tell them that we plain old don't like them.

Re:More, please! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264827)

Really, though, what should also be added are antitrust violations. The RIAA has used deceptive and illegal practices to ensure that their music is all that is played on the radio, all that is shown on television, and all that is sold in record stores.

Re:More, please! (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264965)

You forgot attempting to do the same thing with the internet.
Linky. [slashdot.org]

Re:More, please! (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265319)

*Can* an individual sue for anti-trust violations? Or does that need to be done by a DA or a grand jury?

Not that they aren't guilty of all charges, and of anti-trust also, but I'm not sure that this would strengthen the case.

(Caution: IANAL)

Re:More, please! (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265843)

Yes, if they were in a competing business and have monetary damages due to it. Anti-trust is a civil statute as well.

Who could join? (3, Interesting)

downix (84795) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264443)

Would this be just by people they hve harassed, or against any potential target? This leaves the door very open to wild interpretation untill we get clarification.

Re:Who could join? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20264613)

Class action suits are supposed to be filed on the behalf of those affected. So only people the RIAA has maliciously sued, basically.

GAH!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20264461)

Too.. many... links... confused... where do I click.... :-S
*closes browser*

Boy, was that scary! :(

Re:GAH!!! (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264823)

I believe the relevant link is this one. [p2pnet.net] The rest are court documents etc.

I know how it'll go down (3, Funny)

weak* (1137369) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264487)

The witness has testified that you are personally responsible for the murder of a New York City police captain in 1947 and with him a man named Virgil Sollozzo. You deny this?

RIAA: Yes, we do.

Re:I know how it'll go down (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264653)

Lets hope that Tanya Anderson doesn't have a brother in Sicily.

Re:I know how it'll go down (1)

pedramnavid (1069694) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264771)

Mr. WELCH: Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? Senator RIAA: I know this hurts you. But I may say, Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege, and I would like to finish it-- Mr. WELCH. Senator, I think it hurts you, too, sir. Senator MCCARTHY. I would like to finish this.

Re:I know how it'll go down (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265139)

Brilliant quote, the key thing being that what really stopped McCarthy wasn't the justice system itself, it was the public turning against him.

So... (3, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264491)

How can we contribute?

 

Re:So... (1)

Shabbs (11692) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264577)

That was my first thought too.

Where can I send some money to in order to help them out?

Could this be the final knockout blow?

Re:So... (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264943)

Class action suits are usually done on a contingency basis, so the attorney gets his fee from the settlement proceeds.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265667)

How can we contribute?
Why would you want to contribute? Class action lawsuits are typically funded entirely by the lawyers themselves. It's the lawyers who get all the money from the settlements, and the defendants they "represent" end up with gift certificates.

Add me (5, Funny)

Edward Ka-Spel (779129) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264495)

Yes, I have been illegally downloading music for years, I want to be a part of this class action suit.

Oh, wait... Umm... nevermind.

Re:Add me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20264739)

Yes, I have been illegally downloading music for years, I want to be a part of this class action suit.
Yeah, me too. If they owe me $150,000 per song I illegally downloaded, times about 4000 songs... They owe me $600,000,000!!!

Why did it take so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20264503)

what's become of us, that we allow these corporate tyrants to corrupt the system and betray the public trust

oh, and let's not even try to measure the damage they've done to artists and audiences

how do I get in..... (4, Interesting)

Roskolnikov (68772) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264509)

How do I get in this class? do I purchase music? do I pose as someone downloading music? can I turn myself into the riaa in the hopes that they can include me in the pay out?

These folks chasing after a 10 year old is one thing, but I seem to recall they went after a dead man as well, can't wait to see how this plays out.

On the subject of a class action suit (5, Funny)

Haiku 4 U (580059) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264543)

Dear RIAA,
Turnabout is fair play, you
rich smokers-of-cocks.

Love, Haiku 4 U
P.S. I look forward to
great music sans you.

CELEBRATE! (3, Funny)

WwWonka (545303) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264557)

....after reading this glorious news it may be the first time I have wanted to leave my cubicle and head out into the streets to shout at the top of my overworked underpaid lungs...

"FLAVOR FLAAAAAAV!"

then I will promptly head back inside and continue to use our company's massive internet bandwidth to keep downloading pirated music.

Re:CELEBRATE! (1)

bstempi (844043) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265433)

This is your boss. You're fired.

Oh, and on your way our, please give me a copy of all of your music. I'll need it for list^H^H^H^Hevidence.

Verdict (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20264563)

The RIAA will be sentenced to giving all members of the class $12.67 in music downloads from the Kenny Rogers store (with DRM).

In addition to RIAA ... (5, Informative)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264589)

she names a number of other defendants including:
Atlantic Recording Corp.
Priority Records
Capitol Records
UMG Recordings
BMG

And lets not forget that RIAA is just a front organization for a host of others listed here --> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=271437&cid =20249893 [slashdot.org]

The Association has no product per se, the alleged racketeering is therefore being funded by it's members.

I wish her luck as well a success.

Re:In addition to RIAA ... (2, Insightful)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265555)

>The Association has no product per se,

Lawsuits. Lots and lots and lots of lawsuits.

Re: Class Action Initiated Against RIAA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20264595)

Hahaha... How can a disabled single mother sue anyone in the US?

She doesn't even have money!!!

I really wish those disabled folks would not always play the pity card.

In this case so much good could be done for artists and their music when the RIAA would have its way.

Downloading is theft!

Re: Class Action Initiated Against RIAA (1)

arootbeer (808234) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264797)

Poll: Joke or shill?

Re: Class Action Initiated Against RIAA (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265205)

Neither. Just plain old troll, nothing noteworthy.

Haha lol ? (-1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264815)

hahaha lol lol. go back to wow forum, from whence you came here, 'nub'

Re: Class Action Initiated Against RIAA (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265165)

"Downloading is theft!"

SO you commit theft when you came to /.? Because you know your browser downloads the pgae, right?

Or perhaps you really mean Downloading a product whose copyright doesn't allow it is theft?
of course, that's just plain wrong to. That's why there is a different rules and laws for it.

DO you mean "Copying copywrited material without permission is a crime"?
That Can be true, but there are even exceptions to that.

Now do you see why it's different?

Re: Class Action Initiated Against RIAA (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265875)

"Downloading is theft!"

So how do you justify all the times you've committed theft?

The tag you are looking for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20264599)

I believe the tag you are looking for is: 'haha' with a possible side-serving of: 'arseholes' for good measure. :)

Overhyped (5, Insightful)

MajinBlayze (942250) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264621)

This seems a bit overhyped to me. Yes, I want the RIAA to go away, I want the RIAA to stop using brutal tactics, however, they do have the legal right to prosecute people illegally distributing their IP.

Please note that this is specifically for those wrongfully accused. The best we can see from this is getting the RIAA to calm down (a good end no doubt).

For those who are wondering, this will not be the death knell for DRM and the RIAA.
-1 flamebait +1 UnfortunatelyTrue

Re:Overhyped (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265021)

They have the right to protect their IP. They do not have the right to harrass people left and right, peppering the population with lawsuits in a "sue them all, let the courts sort them out" way.

This won't be the death for the RIAA, but it might be the end of their tactics of instilling fear and trying to give the impression that everyone's guilty and just they didn't get around to sue them yet.

Re:Overhyped (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265767)

They have the right to protect their IP. They do not have the right to harrass people left and right, peppering the population with lawsuits in a "sue them all, let the courts sort them out" way.
If they police aren't enforcing the law, and you think "they do not have the right" to use the courts to enforce the law, how do you think the law should be enforced?

Re:Overhyped (2, Insightful)

sircastor (1051070) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265105)

I think, as you say though, this may be a death knell to the way the RIAA currently operates it's legal talons. If the RIAA gets slapped in court once or twice more for a big enough sum they may realize that they can't bully their way around the legal system so easily. This means that fewer people who are innocent will be accused/ have to deal with the grief and frustration of court against bullies.

As for those who just want to download anything they want when they want, this is going to remain against the law. Breaking DRM is going to remain against the law. Frankly, your downloading music isn't helping the situation.

Re:Overhyped (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265273)

Ultimately, I believe you are both right and wrong.

Based on what I think I know about corporations, I suspect that following will occur:
      1. The suit will be awarded class action status
      2. The RIAA will not settle out of court, preferring to drag this out as long as possible, ultimately resulting in a RIAA loss.
      3. The result will be a huge dollar sum.
      4. The RIAA declare bankruptcy, goes down in flames... and
      5. The record companys will form a new association that is effectively another RIAA with a new name.

Unless the record companys themselves are included in the class action, I see no real solution. The existing lawsuits are not the RIAA vs whoever, it's a specific record company. i.e. Atlantic vs Anderson. So the elimination of the RIAA solves nothing. It seems like the RIAA is doing (or heading up) all the dirty work, but it's the membership that is the actual problem. As has been pointed out a number of times before, the marketing here is amazing, even people who should know better (readers of slashdot, for example) buy into the "RIAA is the devil" mentality.

With any luck, all the corporate members of the RIAA will be attached to this thing too, because then that huge judgement could actually be collected..... As it is, if the class goes through, and it's won, it'll never be paid. on a side note, it occurs to me that it might get settled (and the settlement covered by the big RC's) because of something I remember from a few weeks ago, if they get busted for RICO, that impacts the copyrights for every work that was a part of the RICO thing...... Ultimatly there might be a lot of work with the copyrights lost because of the bad tactics.... that'd be an interesting outcome.....

Re:Overhyped (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265881)

Unless the record companys themselves are included in the class action, I see no real solution.

Given the list of claims (particularly that RICO has been raised) and the nature of the RIAA, it seems to me quite possible that the court might be able to pierce the corporate veil of the RIAA and go after the assets of its owners/members. That would prevent steps 4 and 5 of your end-game.

Re:Overhyped (1)

iceperson (582205) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265457)

It's a sad day when someone believes that corporations have the right to "prosecute" people and that gets modded as "insightful"...

Put up or shut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20265595)

Overhyped, eh? So, instead of whining about it, why don't you propose a better alternative?

I doubt you will, but please prove me wrong.

Overrated (1)

jgoemat (565882) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265879)

They have the right to protect their IP. However, they have the responsibility to make sure they are targeting the right people. They have kept several cases going after getting evidence that they sued the wrong people.

About Time! (1, Insightful)

torkus (1133985) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264727)

Oh. My. God. Finally!

Seriously, isn't our country 'By the people for the people'. If the VAST MAJORITY have issues with a law or set or laws or the behavior of a corporate entity in relation to the laws...maybe it's time to rethink those laws or the interpretation of them. Eh?

I hope this goes well, and I hope everyone that was terrorized and blackmailed but the MAFIAA gets a sweet judgement.

Someone wrote in a different forum that the MAFIAA needs to change their business model with cope with the times. Someone replied and asked the first person to suggest a business model and implied that the MAFIAA deserve to be in business and have a 'right' to preserve their business model. Hopefully the people here are smart enough to understand that there is nothing that guarantees you or your corporation the right to a sucessful commercial venture. Hell, maybe I should sue every resident of manhatten because my street meat cart didn't make money and i went out of business, right? Or maybe i should sue NYC to force people to eat at vendor cards once weekly? LOL...

Re:About Time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20265501)

The people are supposed to be able to bring about change. Unfortunately the politicians have successfully brought our system to a one party system. You can either vote for the party (Democrats)that will support big business and corporate interests, or you can vote for the party (Republicans) that support large corporations and the their business interests. Although I post this sarcastically it rings all too true for me. I guess you could vote for a third party (green?) and be the problem. Anyone who voted for Nader is now directly responsible for the Bush Presidency.

keeping politicians and justice system in pocket (1)

sp3000 (755328) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264779)

... don't know whether Confucius said it or not ... but ...
... one, who keeps politicians and justice system in pocket, will always have the last laugh ...

Tor like oatmeals! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20264783)

Tor like oatmeals!

Trivial Compared To A Criminal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20264899)

prosecution against Lies, Incorporated [whitehouse.org] *

* the title of a Philip K. Dick novel.

Constitutionally As Always,
Kilgore Trout, M.D.

These are a few of my favorite things (2, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264905)

"sues for negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy."

Every time they sue a student who had someone jack his wireless connection in the dorms - I'll be there.

Every time they sue a university for students downloading songs they properly were researching for a thesis paper - I'll be there.

Every time they pretend to be agents of the FBI to get in your door without a warrant - I'll be there.

Every time they act as if 90 percent of the wireless access points on my street can't be used by everyone at the two coffee shops and three bars at the end of my street - I'll be there.

Because, let's face it, RIAA is just a plot by the middlemen who are upset that most consumers now buy their music DIRECT from the musicians and cut them out of the loop - so that the band gets $5 of the $10 that I pay them for their CD instead of $0.01 of the $12 that they would get if I bought the CD at anything other than any independent music store (the latter give them about $1 to $2).

Extending the clIass action scope (1)

pigphish (1070214) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264941)

I would love to see a class action to get back money for DVDs that didnt work in my player because of their protection i have to assume. I just bought the 300 and it wouldnt work on an older DVD player. im sure less legal copies would have no problem. On another note, i would love to see a class action challenging some of the fair use rights we lost with DMCA. I am of the view that i shouldn't be penalized because someone is copying illicitly. i believe the aclu was pursuing this. did anything become of it?

RIAA - Now is your chance (1)

johkir (716957) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264979)

The RIAA better take a look at amnesty [riaaamnesty.com] now, before it costs them too much!

I just creamed my pants (2, Funny)

danZbar (989499) | more than 7 years ago | (#20264985)

"Class Action...RIAA." YES, YES, YES, OH GOD... I will never wash these pants again.

He who lives by the sword... (1)

kranberry (669184) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265045)

... you know the rest. All I can do is quote from POTC3: "Finally!"

Law of unintended consequences... (1)

jnaujok (804613) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265059)

1. And you thought CDs were expensive before...
2. The only music to be produced will be the kind no one wants to pirate... Think 90's boy bands.
3. ????
4. Profit!

Sorry, that last one just slipped in there.

Prey for a smart judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20265111)

Like Judge Kimball; someone who's just as intelligent - and unwilling to buy into bullshit - to over see this case.

Re:Prey for a smart judge (1)

kranberry (669184) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265153)

And Pray for /. to get a spellchecker (Preview just isn't the same for a lot of people).

Re:Prey for a smart judge (1)

kranberry (669184) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265215)

Sorry for the wasted bandwidth. Most spellcheckers wouldn't have caught this one.

Don't you need to be sued in order to join? (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265157)

I'm not a lawyer so I really have no idea, but don't you need to be sued by the RIAA in order to join this class action lawsuit?

yes (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265203)

the witch king of angmar is defeated by a woman

Re:yes (1)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265789)

And a hobbit :-).

Oh no, she's disabled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20265221)

Why the hell does it matter if she is a "disabled single mother"? I dislike like the RIAA's practices as much as anyone else, but enough of this silly appeal to emotion. I'd like to see a RIAA lawsuit article against an "average, happily married, abled mother" but I doubt that would spark as much outcry.

One comment (1)

billsoxs (637329) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265301)

...sues for negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy

OUCH!

Potential Legal Down side...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20265589)

Don't class actiion suits essentially make the company immune to any further claims from individuals? Presumably because everyones claims are already represented.

I've been sent a notification that I was part of a "winning" class action suit. I was supposed to get like 10 dollars and then I could no longer sue Ford for some problem with the air bag or seatbelts or something like that.

Now, I wasn't actualy injured by the problem, so I wasn't planning on sueing them. But the idea of having to give up my rights to sue them later really turned me off about class actions in general.

Anyone know the process better?

Is this going to let RIAA off cheaply, and make it easy for them to dismiss later suits (by arguing that if they were valid they should have been part of the class action)?

The Big Class Question (3, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265613)

The biggest class question as I see it is: How many other people can claim enough similar circumstances to qualify?

Certainly the same shoddy, and likely illegal, MediaSentry investigative methods were used against all defendants. And the Settlement Support Center refused to dismiss anyone from a lawsuit who didn't pay them the extortion tax regardless of the evidence -- or lack of it. And even innocent defendants had large legal bills if they fought. Plus all had their computers, privacy, and reputations besmirched by the RIAA publicity steamroller regardless of the outcome of the suit -- with no apologies offered afterwards.

But is this enough in common to qualify as a class? While I hope so, the legal system doesn't operate with the same kinds of logic I employ in ordinary, everyday life.

Last question: (1)

cryptomancer (158526) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265619)

Where can I sign up?

Asking for too much (4, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265649)

As much as I want to sock-it-to-'em, I think this lady is asking a wee bit too much, and this will do more harm than good in the long run.

Remember folks, many, if not most, of the *IAAs victims are technically guilty. True, the RIAA and friends are coming down on them unnecessarily hard, but it's not like they are truly innocent. It's the innocent ones that, thankfully, get the nice press.

The fact that many or most of the defendants are actually guilty will greatly weaken any class-action suit.

A much better solution is to make judges nationwide aware that just because the RIAA/MPAA say someone is violating the law doesn't make it so. Many judges are already waking up to this fact and stopping the mafIAA from taking the "easy road to victory," ending ex-parte motions and other dirty tricks.

If the RIAA think my IP address is stealing, then get a court to order my ISP to order me to contact the court and, after hearing from both sides, let the court decide if the RIAA is entitled to my contact information. Allow my lawyers to subpoena records from the ISP before the RIAA gets my personal information. If the judge denies the RIAA's request, or if they eventually lose at trial, make them pay all my reasonable and actual expenses. If the suit was done with malice, with reckless disregard for the facts, or as a fishing expedition, have the court fine the RIAA for wasting everyone's time.

The real problem of the digital age and music... (4, Insightful)

bradcb212 (1141199) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265701)

In my opinion, the great threat of the RIAA and the age of digital music is not just downloaders, but also their legal, pay-per-track alternatives...

Why have the record companies fought Apple for higher prices? Why have some companies refuted the potential profits of a deal with iTunes?

It is the a la carte concept of iTunes, allofmp3, kazaa, napster, etc... you name it that's the real issue at hand here...

I think the big motivating factor for downloading music is NOT based on an unwillingness to pay a small fee for the songs you want, it's based on an unwillingness to pay $20 for at most 3 songs that you want...

Since the glory days of the music industry, they've primarily sold albums as it was the most convenient and economical form of distribution. This method suited the consumer well as he didn't have to rush out to the store everytime a new song came out, it suited the musician well as it allowed to him to make a good hour or so of music, then go on tour and wow the crowds, and it suited the industry well because even if only 1 or 2 of the songs on the album became hits, people would still shell out the full price of the album for those songs they wanted.

Fast track to the present, and the internet has tipped the economic balance in favor of the consumer. Although the album system is still convenient in the ways listed above and many not-listed...(for instance "branding"), consumers appear no-longer willing to buy full albums for the most part.

So, I find it funny that /. has reported on many occasions about the "falling profit gaps of the recording industry," and how "legal downloads are not filling this gap," as if there was ever any chance of this happening.. This is a question of economics, not piracy...

People are not rushing out to the cd store anymore. Hell, I haven't stepped foot in one in over a year. People are downloading the SONGS they want, and that's it...or they're waiting for their friends to get it and send it to them. In my opinion though, these people are not thieves, just opportunists, responding to a large imbalance in price between the traditional cd, and the legal or not-so legal per-track alternatives.

Why else has it taken so long for legal download services such as iTunes to come about. How many years after Napster's destruction did it take? Why didn't the RIAA look at the story of napster (after they sued the piss out of it) and build their own legal alternative? Because they know what it means...it means they can no-longer fleece the consumer with the album like they've been doing for a loooong time.

So, although the album will likely remain a convenient unit for musicians and for "branding" purposes, I see the concept of consumers purchasing full albums a fast-fading one.

The album....is dead

That's it? (1)

vthokie69 (549779) | more than 7 years ago | (#20265711)

They forgot to include in the lawsuit, kicking puppies and kidnapping first born children.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?