Accusing The RIAA Of Racketeering For File Sharing Lawsuits
from the interesting-strategies dept
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
His lawyer was all for fighting it in court.
But said he would get better results(IE save cash) negotiating for a lower settlement.
I hope this lawsuit slams DirectTV execs in jail.
Course this will never happen... People with money don't go to jail.. lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It sounds like extortion to me.
1) You're guilty.
2) You owe us one hundred bazillion dollars.
3) We'll accept $2K - $10K as a settlement.
That sounds like extortion to me.
If instead they send a letter that says (in essence)
1) You're guilty.
2) You owe us one hundred bazillion dollars.
And you respond with a letter that says
"yikes, I'm sorry, but I can't pay that much"
and then the RIAA writes back and says "we accept your sincere apology and if you'll pay $2K - $10K and agree to never use file sharing software again to share copyrighted music files, we'll drop the lawsuit", that sounds a lot less like extortion.
Anybody know if the RIAA included item #3 in the first round of letters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
See the Pepsi commercial about kids downloading? See the reactions? The backlash is growing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pepsi Commercial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Maybe, soon, americans will have rights too!
No, I don't think it's *right* to take a song off the net that you didn't pay for (sometime down the road), but it's not Illegal in the same sense as stealing.. mainly because it's not, but also because it doesn't feel the same.
Murder, assault and theft directly deprive a victim of rights to life, security and pursuit of happiness (not so much material, but that subtlety may be lost here). Getting another copy of osmething one's already paid-for is vastly different.
Grabbing music for which someone hasn't paid this overlording contract house that turns around and steals from the people it claims to protect and serve - like unicef only incroyably worse - that's not stealing either so much as outsmarting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
DirectTV on the other hand is stating simply that they had the means, yet no action or evidence to suggest they used the equipment in an illegal method. It's kinda like being arrested for attempted armed robbery simply because you bought a gun.
So whether or not you agree with what the RIAA is doing or how they are doing it, they are still acting within the frame work of the US legal system.
The DirectTV cases on the other hand may wind up being a bigger headache for DirectTV than they think. While it may or may not be extortion, it could be argued at the very least that it's harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Really? What kind of evidence? Did they actually download the files from the people they are suing to confirm that what the person is sharing is what they claim it to be?
Or, did they just do a search for "brittney spears +MP3" and target everyone who has a file matching that criteria and ASSUME they are copyright violators?
Evidence needs to be a lot more than just a file name that matches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
basic concept of absolut right
this is the case like if you take mine i can take yours Thingi... the mentallity of the world about free source should be repaired
ITS WRONG TO DOWNLOAD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
holy loss of liberty batman!
life SECURITY and the pursuit of happiness?
THOSE WHO WOULD GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY FOR TEMPORARY SAFTEY, DESERVE NIETHER LIBERTY NOR SAFTEY>>>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: holy loss of liberty batman!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
holy loss of liberty batman!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Check Payment
I got it connected and paid for the installation, then shortly after i got my 1st bill. I promptly sent out my 1st payment by check. the payment got to direct tv on the 10th of september, well as they say on the 14th of the month my payment got returned.
The problem is that i had plenty of money in my account, and i have no stop payments or no blocks on my account. So for no reason should the payment have been returned. however i went to talk to my bank and they said that that check doesnt even exist in their files, pretty much it never went through the bank.
after talking to my father he said i should request a copy of the returned check, to make sure they got the right check, or to make sure they didn't lose it. well i called direct tv, and their representatives couldn't help me, and their supervisers treated me like poop. Pretty much they say they wont take checks from me, and ive never bounced a check, I have good credit, and thats the only way i want to pay them, i shouldn't be forced to use my credit card. any ways, dont ever sign a two year contract with direct tv, I am running out of time or my story would go on forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Echostar otherwise known for extorting money from their customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]