chevalier
Thu, 21st Dec '06, 2:09am
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 (http://techdirt.com/articles/20061219/121441.shtml)
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 (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061204/003837.shtml)
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 (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060405/0227225.shtml)
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 (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040218/1111250_F.shtml)
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! :rolleyes:
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.
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 (http://techdirt.com/articles/20061219/121441.shtml)
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 (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061204/003837.shtml)
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 (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060405/0227225.shtml)
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 (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040218/1111250_F.shtml)
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! :rolleyes:
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.