Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act

[Bob Hubbard]

Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act

Sunday October 02, @06:58AM
from the racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations dept.
devnulljapan is one of many users to let us know that another single mother is taking the fight to the RIAA. More than just standing up to them however, Tanya Anderson has decided to go on the offensive and countersue. In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate the suit identifies violations of the Oregon RICO Act in addition to 'fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.' Ms. Anderson has also demanded a trial by jury.


(Read More...Slashdot)

 

[Andrew Green]

Good for her.

They all seem to get settled out of court, do to cost of going to court being greater. Basically it sounds like they do a "Pay us $5000" or we'll drag you into court and drown you in lawyer bills...

Sidetrack rant:

Downloading songs is not stealing, sharing songs is not stealing, it is Copyright infringment. If it was stealing why the seperate set of laws and punishments? Why is downloading a cd punished harsher then physically stealing one from a store?

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

More power to her!

I have bought several many cds based on what others have shared with me and I despise the RIAA for the forcefulness it has shown in "punishing' those that share songs and movies.

pleh...I can't continue without throwing the swear-filter into an endless loop.


egg

 

[Andrew Green]

For Canadians:

"The Copyright Act includes a private copying exception that grants Canadians the right to make personal, non–commercial copies of music without requiring permission from the copyright holder. Both the Copyright Board of Canada and the Federal Court of Canada have ruled that private copying may include peer–to–peer music downloads [24]. This interpretation is consistent with both the technologically neutral language found in the legislation as well as with many similar private copying systems in Europe."

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_4/geist/

 

[arnisador]

Well, let the courts settle it all! I have no problem with that.

 

[TonyM.]

My big beef is with ASCAP and BMI. These a-hats act like leg breakers for loan sharks.I'm a musician and a writer and I despise these punks that are SUPPOSED to be looking out for the artists. They have been running a strong arm campaign now for over twenty five years.
The first incident that made me aware of them was at the Mooselips cafe in Waitsfield Vt. at aprox. 10:30 pm on a Friday night back in '80. I was playing pool and six state troopers walked in and impounded the cash register because BMI had a suit against them for playing the radio and eight tracks in the bar. The next day they had a coin op jukebox. Since then every restaurant I have worked at has recieved threatening phone calls from BMI and ASCAP at least once a week and in some cases have been served with court papers.
It seems our friends at BMI and ASCAP think people go out to dinner to hear the canned music and they believe the establishments should be paying royalties. The only thing they want is for you to bye some very expensive form of muzak that has huge royalties built in.
What they forget or don't care about is that , first -people aren't at fancy restaurants to listen to the radio and that the radio stations are already paying royalties on the music they play.
end of rant.

 

[OUMoose]

Downloading songs is not stealing, sharing songs is not stealing, it is Copyright infringment. If it was stealing why the seperate set of laws and punishments? Why is downloading a cd punished harsher then physically stealing one from a store?

Because the CD in the store is already paid for by the reseller. The RIAA doesn't care about shoplifting because it's constituent companies already have their money. Also, I believe that stores factor in a percentage of losses to theft, and currently that margin is not large enough to stop doing business that way (if that is incorrect, please correct me).

 

[BlackCatBonz]

For Canadians:

"The Copyright Act includes a private copying exception that grants Canadians the right to make personal, non–commercial copies of music without requiring permission from the copyright holder. Both the Copyright Board of Canada and the Federal Court of Canada have ruled that private copying may include peer–to–peer music downloads [24]. This interpretation is consistent with both the technologically neutral language found in the legislation as well as with many similar private copying systems in Europe."

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_4/geist/

Andrew, is this the latest news?
i heard that they were going to try and introduce legislation like the DMCA.
that was back in june, but i havent heard anything about it since.

 

[Andrew Green]

DMCA doesn't prevent making personal copies, it's a sneak around method that makes it a crime to break copy protection.

So while you have the right to make personal copies, you don't have the right to break the copy protection on it, meaning you can't utilize your right to making personal copies without first breaching the DMCA...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I just like how they want a sur-charge on all blank media, all mp3 players, all hard drives, etc.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

we already pay that in canada. i think thats been in effect here for a long time. that is one of the reasons a judge ruled that file sharing in canada is indeed legal because purchasers already paid the surcharge and it adequately compensates artists.

 

[Andrew Green]

The copyright holders get the levy. Which means the producers, not the artists

 

[BlackCatBonz]

the person who holds the copyrights on music is usually the author of the music. thats why many artists have their own publishing companies. i am not disagreeing with you about the producers........that was the case a long time ago with naive artists entrusting all of their intellectual assets with one person who was going to make them rich.

 

[arnisador]

Meanwhile...Grandpa Is Sued Over Grandson's Downloads:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_on_hi_te/movie_downloads

A 67-year-old man who says he doesn't even like watching movies has been sued by the film industry for copyright infringement after a grandson of his downloaded four movies on their home computer.

The Motion Picture Association of America filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Fred Lawrence of Racine, seeking as much as $600,000 in damages for downloading four movies over the Internet file-sharing service iMesh.

The suit was filed after Lawrence refused a March offer to settle the matter by paying $4,000.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Meanwhile...Grandpa Is Sued Over Grandson's Downloads:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_on_hi_te/movie_downloads

ridiculous

 

[Andrew Green]

Might as well just steal them from the store, punishment if you get caught is far less...

Sue for $600,000, scare the crap out of a retired man and settle for $4000 without a court fight. Seems to be the usual practice.