Sue-happy RIAA gets hit with malicious prosecution claim
Summary: In their crusade against illegal file sharing, it looks like the Recording Industry Association of America has taken their job a bit too seriously. Ars Technica reports that one exonerated defendant may bring suit against the RIAA for malicious prosecution, and there may be more.
Tanya Andersen, a disabled single mother who lives in Oregon, was sued in 2005 by the RIAA for file-sharing, but denied the claim, stating that there was lack of any evidence of infringement apart from an IP address. Despite this, the RIAA forged ahead with the lawsuit and partook in what Andersen claims were malicious acts including fraud, racketeering and deceptive business practices by the record labels.
Even an employee at the Settlement Support Center, the RIAA's prelitigation collections agent, allegedly told Andersen that he believed she had not infringed any copyrights according to the complaint.
"Instead of dismissing their false claims, the defendant Record Companies persisted in their malicious prosecution of her. They publicly libeled her with demanding and repulsive accusations [sic]" that she listened to misogynistic rap music according to the complaint."
The RIAA did finally agree to dismiss the case against her with prejudice, making her the prevailing party and eligible for attorneys fees.
Anderson has since filed the counterclaim against several major record labels, the parent company of RIAA investigative arm MediaSentry, and the RIAA's Settlement Support Center on the grounds that the RIAA engaged in fraud and negligent misrepresentation by demanding that she enter into a four-figure settlement for copyright infringement that she never engaged in. The RIAA is also accused of violating both federal and state RICO statutes, and committing the torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.
Legal analysts think the malicious prosecution suit will be hard to prove. Attorney Rich Vasquez thinks that at the very least the RIAA and its agents were engaging in unethical behavior in their quest to root out illegal filesharing activity. And if this suit gets a hearing, it may pave the way for a class action lawsuit.
"You'd have to have a lot of winners," said Vasquez. "If you have enough people bringing charges of malicious prosecution, you could then show a pattern of practices on the part of the RIAA."
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Old Harry would envy these guys
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/06/the-new-old-har.html
Bye,
Oliver
Go gett'em
We need some street justice.....monitoring internet connection without warrent, time to stop these anti-Americans.
I was out on a popular hacker site and it said they had hacked into the RIAA and is watching them and that they are going to start posting all the data of who they are looking at....I hope this is true....just a turn of fair play I say..the RIAA does it to us, why not do it to them! In fact we should start finding out what these RIAA people do in thier private lives and start posting the info....they must not mind invasion of privacy anyways.
about time
RIAA is a litigation business
Thus if settlements range from $2500 to $5000 then there is, roughly $2000-4000 pure profit per suit. Taking a midrange figure of $3000/suit, at 100,000 law suits per year, then they get $300 million in profit per year, not bad by most business standards.
In fact, at this level of profitability the RIAA and their member companies can get out of the music distribution business entirely and have two operations: one for obtaining licenses from Artists and the other for suing consumers. In fact, they could even partner with p-p sites by cutting them in for a piece of the action for every user they turn in. If music distribution is left to Apple and a few on line distributors then p-p can be simultaneously encouraged and punished. To be truly world class the RIAA needs to get their volume up to about a million or so law suits per year and their profits into the billions. Music distribution is becoming a tough business, lawsuits are much easier and more lucrative.
About Time!!
The agency does nothing for me, my colleagues, or the industry other than to protect
it's own profit base at any cost, and to keep prices artificially high so SONY et al can
continue to make the lion's share of profits on CD's etc.
Here's a few thoughts...
For several millenia music was played and shared with everyone. People would pay artists to perform songs, and didn't really care if they wrote the music, just if it was good.
Now we are trying to remember and differentiate between songs, who wrote them, whether they are rip-offs of another's work, etc. What a waste of time and an infringement on peoples happiness. Even though I may be able to get songs I cannot legally play them because I haven't paid someone who wrote them. Why waste time doing it then?
I love live music. I can download it and listen to it from http://etree.org/ . I go to see the musicians I like from this site, as they share their music with their fans (to relive a concert or get into their music). Even though I do not suffer from the RIAA's Nazi tactics, others do and it is wrong.
The RIAA reminds me of SCO. One can use the law for moral reasons or because there is profit to be had from it. Intellectual Property laws in the United States are wrong and at the very least they should have an expiry date. They reduce inovation and happiness. Isn't that counter productive?
Nazi storm troopers
The RIAA/MPAA is nothing more
Their members should all be tarred and
feathered, and rode out of town on a
rail.
I purchased a movie (on Ebay) about how
the MPAA rates movies and holds the
industry hostage. Here is a sample:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/
"Ever been curious about the American
film rating system? Then Kirby Dick's
This Film Is Not Yet Rated is perfect.
It does to US censorship what Michael
Moore has done to others: it makes
everyone look like jackasses, mainly
because that's what they really are.
The film explains pretty early on,
through South Park-style animation, what
kind of rating a movie can get in the
USA: G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17. The last
certificate is the most unpleasant one,
as a film with that classification won't
get a proper distribution. And it's that
particular rating that Dick wants to
dissect."
The RIAA is just as bad or worse than
the MPAA. Here's a couple of links to
some of their stinky dealings:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060121-6025.html
http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/RIAA_MPAA_alert_40_university_presidents_in_25_states_of_LAN_piracy.asp
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,120425-page,1/article.html
Well we now know at least ONE Senator the RIAA/MPAA have in their pocket!
The major language to "permit customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers" via a flagging technology which will also restrict exactly WHAT each piece of digital equipment in the pipeline can do puts literally ALL the control in the hands of whoever decides what to put in those FLAGS and unless some pretty strict standard were developed far in advance of implementation would IMMEDIATELY put a halt to development of any new equipment designed to work with, manipulate, process, and GOD FORBID RECORD! such signals.
Our only hope, assuming a bill like this DOES make it through Congress, would be that the courts would strike a phrase like "customary historic use" down as "unconstitutionally vague," which is a phrase they've used on several other occasions to strike down other less useless laws (like Montana's lack of a speed limit, which simply said, "Drive Safely." A State Trooper gave someone who didn't "drive safely" a speeding ticket and the Supreme Court overturned their law on that basis).
I understand the need to prevent piracy. However, the RIAA/MPAA remind me of the British Admiralty during Colonial times when they would make some Pirates "Privateers." They were still Pirates, but they were Pirates with the blessing of the British Crown, essentially doing its dirty work. Today, those people are called RIAA/MPAA attorneys!
Jeff
I would hate
Actually, all of the 'major' maritime powers used this same method of 'confounding the enemy', including the French, Spanish, Dutch and the US itself. Basically anyone who could get a 'Letter of Marque' could go into the business of making money from the work of others....
Most of this activity stopped around 1856 (I think) - but that's a long time after one of the most famous 'privateers' - Sir Francis Drake....
Maybe the RIAA will get outlawed as well eventually :)
"Maybe the RIAA will get outlawed"
years, at the outside, before the public
decides to remove the cancer from
amongst us. At that time, the RIAA/MPAA
won't be the only things to go. Probably
be a few congress-critters in the bunch,
as well as many rep-uh-sen-ta-tives, and
maybe a pres-ah-dent or two in the
bunch.
It's about damn time!