If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Hertz Ordered To Tell Court How Many Thousands Of Renters It Falsely Accuses Of Theft Every Year
- Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional
- Letter From High-Ranking FBI Lawyer Tells Prosecutors How To Avoid Court Scrutiny Of Firearms Analysis Junk Science
- FTC Promises To Play Hardball With Robocall-Enabling VOIP Providers
- FOIA Lawsuit Featuring A DC Police Whistleblower Says PD Conspired To Screw Requesters It Didn't Like
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Of course they can sue ...
"It's so obviously illegal when someone steals another person's property. Of course they have every right to sue," added Cooper, who is the former president of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences and the California Copyright Conference. "
Whether sharing music is "stealing" is quite debateable, so we'll just leave that aside for now.
Just because one has a "right to sue" doesn't give an entity a license to use the courts as the "strongarm" of an extortion racket.
If it can be demonstrated that the RIAA never has had any intention of allowing any of these cases to actually come before a judge (and none has) by using the discovery process to dig up incriminating memos which might state explicitly this strategy, then suddenly this case isn't so preposterous.
It is being alleged in the suit that this is the EXACT strategy of the RIAA (that is: filing suits ONLY as a way of extracting a settlement, with no intention of actually taking the thing to trial).
If that can be proven (and I have no way of knowing if it can be proven) then the case doesn't really sound so preposterous now does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]