Potential major blow to the RIAA?

Published 11/10/06

Most of us know that the Recording Industry Association of America has been suing thousands of people it claims have downloaded pirated music — everyone from teenage computer geeks to grandmothers who don’t even own computers.

The RIAA’s tactics, which are akin to extortion, are to demand a “settlement” from the defendant under the threat of taking them to court and demanding far more money.

Marie Lindor was one of the people the RIAA decided to target. As with everyone else it sued, the RIAA demanded $750 per downloaded song from her. She refused to settle. And she’s fighting back.

Today she won a major battle. Lindor challenged the idea that the songs she’s accused of downloading are worth $750 each. In fact, she pointed out, those songs are sold for only 99 cents — only 70 cents of which goes to the music label. That $750 price tag is, as the judge in the case ruled, “1,071 times the actual damages suffered.”

Lindor wants to be able to challenge that $750 price tag in court as part of her defense, and now she’s won that right (against the RIAA’s frantic objections).

Note to journalists: If you write that the music industry loses such-and-such amount of money every year due to piracy, you cannot use the industry’s figures; they’re wildly inflated.

No RIAA lawsuit has ever gone to court. The cases are either settled, or the RIAA drops the complaint when it finds it has targeted the wrong person. In one of those cases, when the defendant (one Paul Wilke) fought back, the record label admitted it didn’t have enough evidence and demanded the right to search Wilke’s computer to find evidence.

You read that right. The record label, Elektra in this case, sued the guy without having enough evidence. Amazing.

In that case, it was ruled that simply having a name, IP address, and list of songs allegedly downloaded wasn’t enough evidence. Now, with the ruling in the Lindor case, the RIAA faces the possibility that not only is its primary tactic weakened, but the damages it claims are also under attack.

Good.

The Fray

7 responses (add yours)

gnomic says:

YEAH!!! The RIAA needs to burn in hell for the tactics they’ve been using.

I was teaching a security class the other week and I explained that keeping your wireless unencrypted was, legally speaking, a smart thing to do. If the RIAA can only prove that access occured at an IP, your lawyer can argue that it could have been anyone. Sure, you might be violating the terms of your ISP, but the worst they can do is cut you off. The RIAA can sue you without proof.

A couple of years back I found a bootleg that just rocked and sent the artist $20 directly. They never cashed the check, but I strongly believe in supporting the artist. I also believe that the RIAA and thier members can only continue thier exortion of artists and consumers as long as they can hold back progress.

November 10th, 2006 at 9:47 PM

Leland says:

One more nail in the RIAA coffin. To bad all those that settled probably signed any chance of retribution away when they did.

Stealing and sharing the music is wrong, however as Andrew pointed out a year or so ago, the penalties are unjust.

November 11th, 2006 at 11:55 AM

jinx says:

As you may have guessed I’m more a fan of the RIAA than not - i believe you used the word download when you should have used the word upload yes? Or am I wrong? It’s always been my impression that they do not go after downloaders, but go after people who are uploading and that seems like a fair way to go about it.

As for the penalties - in the case of uploaded music I think the settlements have been very fair to the consumer.

I of course could be wrong.

November 20th, 2006 at 7:53 PM

Leland says:

Jinx sat before his computer and composed the following words, “It’s always been my impression that they do not go after down loaders, but go after people who are uploading and that seems like a fair way to go about it.”

Incorrect. The RIAA through a company called MediaSentry sets up “honey pots” of music for down loading over peer to peer (P2P) networks. Then when some unsuspecting kid downloads a song from one of these honey pot locations, the Internet Protocol (IP) address is captured.

Then attorneys working for the RIAA begin the process of identifying the owners of the IP address by filing motions for discovery and serving subpoenas on the internet provider that owns that IP address. Once they establish who was using that IP address at that time (which is not entirely accurate, they send out threatening letters with a non-negotiable $3750 settlement offer.

If you decline their magnanimous offer to settle, they file suit in the United States District Court that serve the area you live in. As a rule they ask for $750 per song downloaded from MediaSentry’s honey pot servers.

At that point you, your assets and much of your future earnings are in play.

Then Jinx sat caused the computer to emit theses characters, “As for the penalties - in the case of uploaded music I think the settlements have been very fair to the consumer.”

Okay, I had to have my nose tweaked on this issue. Now it’s time for your reality check. How is it fair to a consumer who’s only sin may have been to have an open wireless port on their home network to extort $3750 or we’ll cost you tens of thousands in legal fees for trying to defend yourself?

Let me refer you to http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ for more facts then I am capable of giving here.

And lastly Jinx closed with the following gross understatement, “I of course could be wrong.”

Trust me, you are.

The people stealing the music need to have their noses swatted with a rolled up newspaper. But the Gestapo like tactics that are being employed along with the outrageous sums of money being extorted under the threat mid five digit legal bills puts the RIAA in a class with the organized crime, robber barons, raping and pillaging pirates, etc.

November 20th, 2006 at 9:22 PM

jinx says:

I have talked to people at the RIAA and I have been told it is ONLY about uploading because they would not have a legal leg to stand on if it was about downloading. Granted I have not wasted much time talking about this subject with them in a few years and perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me.

I’ve also been told that these offenders are given notification to cease their activities prior to any lawsuits.

With those things in mind you can see why I would have no problem with people being fined.

I do not want to live in a lawless world…do you? Because in my humble opinion that’s the core of the issue.

If i have time later I will attempt to verify my information to see if it’s still true. Maybe things have changed, but I can’t imagine why. If what the RIAA was doing was so really out of line, common sense would say that these innocent victimes of the RIAA would not roll over and pay. Guilt has a way of making people back down in situations like this.

For the record - I’m not trying to antagonize you.

g’day

November 21st, 2006 at 12:49 PM

Leland says:

Jinx, that leaves only one possible answer. The RIAA people are lying to you. You really should have a look at the link I posted.

That thing about “Guilt has a way of making people back down in situations like this” makes me wonder if you’ve ever been party or witness to an all out legal battle. Why do you think an auto insurance company will write you a check for upwards of $5000 for pain and suffering on insignificant personal injuries resulting from a traffic accident?

It is cheaper to write that check then to mount a legal defense and take the matter to court. Just like the shady personal injury lawyer’s tactics, the RIAA’s actions amount to nothing more then legal extortion.

November 22nd, 2006 at 2:11 AM