How Long Does The RIAA Get To Abuse The Legal System?
from the keep-on-suing dept
The RIAA has dropped its file-sharing suit against an Oklahoma mother who had no connection to any such activities, beyond paying an ISP bill. Good news -- sort of. The case was dropped after the woman filed a claim to have it dismissed, then faced with the prospect their case would be thrown out, the RIAA asked -- and was allowed -- to withdraw it on their own instead. This is basically the same scenario as that of a Michigan woman who the group sued because her kids were alleged to be file-sharing, though in this most recent case, the RIAA will have to pay the defandant's legal bills. Several questions are raised here, but first and foremost is why does the RIAA simply get to drop these lawsuits with little or no repercussions when it becomes clear they're bogus? Again and again, the RIAA has filed these spurious lawsuits, simply bullying people and employing dubious tactics. And despite not ever actually winning a fully litigated case, instead just trying to steamroll people into paying ridiculous damages, the RIAA rolls on. At some point, shouldn't somebody put a stop to these bogus suits, and force the RIAA to own up to the consequences of using the legal system as its personal sandbox? The costs of these individual cases mean nothing to the RIAA, even if they have to pay a defendant's legal bills, but the costs to the people they're suing -- who are often innocent, but are bullied into settling -- are significant. Why are they allowed to continue? Keep in mind, too, that the lawsuits have done nothing to stop file-sharing.
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
RE: RIAA
Neither does the cost of lobbying. It really is less about the RIAA and more about the political sturucture of the US. There are not the first ones to use/abuse the system, and the definitely not be the last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like this.
When you buy a CD you're supporting TERROR!
Fight Back! FILE SHARE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I like this.
When you buy a CD you're supporting TERROR!
Fight Back! FILE SHARE!
Like it too man
"Peace"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA "Legal" Tactics
Only tort reform that provides for the financial rewards are paid to the winning defendant for damages both financial and emotional will reduce the absurd way the American tort system behaves.
Good luck to all of us. In a perfect world some legislature will eventually get the courage to begin the return to sanity in our corts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA "Legal" Tactics
S.T.F.U.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA "Legal" Tactics
Maybe only music producers and actors and lawyers should be allowed to retire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA "Legal" Tactics
"My God man, we can vote ourselves a raise!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA "Legal" Tactics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA "Legal" Tactics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA "Legal" Tactics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My idea
Probem solved once and for all.
But...
ONCE AND FOR ALL!
Im stuggling for creative answers here...somebody help me out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its almost exclusively a logical fallacy....
nevermind the trolls Dr. you'll have to excuse the internet-going general public from expectations of intelligent thought, sad but true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA and Tort Reform
Neither malpracticing doctors who think they should not have to pay for their injurious conduct which causes permanent brain injuries to children which they want to limit to $250K- nor the RIAA.
Make them try their case and pay the legal fees and damages is they are wrong.
Our system works. The Judge will reduce the damages if they are too much. The damage must be reasonable in relation to the injury sustained.
Who should make the laws, Idiot Trolls like Vay or Lawyers who understand that everyone wants special treatment, especially Doctors. The insurance companies have the VAYs and the doctors thinking there are too many law suits. On the otherhand they do not want to have their executive compensative examined($39M for Progressive's CEO) or their profits ($44 Billion for 2005-their best ever)
It is obvious the Vay trolls and Docs will digest all the barnyard swill and not point the finger at the right one.
Riaa is exposed, but only when their target is innocent,
not when the target is guilty and will lose in the litigation process.
Open Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and Tort Reform
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/07/13/2218259.shtml
Looks like they got scared, filed to dismiss before they had a chance to lose.
Don't worry, we'll nail them eventually and I hope the court tears them apart when the time comes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and Tort Reform
For the wealthy. One can literally get away with murder if they have enough money.
But who believe it should be reserved for those who can "pay to play".
Many people cave in to the RIAA simply because they can't afford the legal costs to pursue justice, not because they are guilty. You may believe the system is working but I say it's badly broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*****************************************************
This is very true. Like it or not (sidestepping the snide comment made by poster 5 which really shows a lack of intelligence) He makes a valid point. You scream about the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs but how do you think it got that way?? Bender and Bender and every other ambulance chasing lawyer out to make a killing on the next ridiculous lawsuit that overinflates the "victim's" income for an error, valid or not that was made.
We push to have FDA shorten limits on testing new drugs then sue the pants off the drug companies when they can't finish sufficient testing. Now they're all moving overseas to protect themselves and putting the US at risk should we have an epidemic or a shortage (recall the flu vaccine snafu).
Seems off topic, but it is just another oozing sore that is our legal system. If you really want to get snide with someone, sic your sarcasm on the lawyers that are really causing all the damage. I congratulate you Doc, that you survived through your practice to retire. You deserve it!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how to stop the RIAA (and the MPAA if you want)
Basically this says that the person is abusing the legal system to file frivolous claims and they cannot file ANY court case AT ALL without direct permission from the highest court in that state/EU country.
Basically the RIAA files cases knowing most people will panic and give in...its basically illegal extortion.
Hey RIAA if you want to try to sue ME go ahead, I just called you a bunch of blackmailing extortionists who abuse the legal system to try to steal money from the public. I would LOVE to have them try to sue me so I could crush them in the UK courts...even if they drop the case, under UK law I can file a counterclaim for upto 100x whatever they try to claim from me!
(they ask for £1000 then I can countersue for £100,000 for the frivolous lawsuit)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how to stop the RIAA (and the MPAA if you want)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you sue someone for an amount of money, and you drop the case or lose the cast, you have to pay the defendant the amount you sued for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's break the cycle down. And I have a niche inside this cycle, so yes, I do know some of what I'm talking about.
Lawsuit is filed, and a doctor's malpractice coverage has to pay out multi-millions of dollars. The premium for the insurance is increased, which means the doctor has to pay more for it. The doctor has no choice (no, I'm right... no choice) but to pass that cost on to his source of income (basic business here). These rising costs means that healthcare insurance has to pay more for doctor's bills. That increased cost is passed onto the insurance company's source of income: us. And some of us (not accusing anyone here of this...) decide to recoup that by finding a lawyer who will drum up the simplest infraction into a multi-million dollar malpractice suit.
That's why we pay more for health insurance. So, all of you people out that got rich off of an unnecessary malpractice suit... I only wish the doctor had killed you instead of just hurting you.
The thing that's out of hand and that needs to be reformed is the "pain and suffering" claims. If yon Dr. makes a mistake while performing his duties on me, I would expect compensation for the added costs of fixing that mistake. That would include any costs for rehabilitation, added inconvenience (i.e. opening my home's doorways to make it wheelchair compatible), and maybe a bit of an "I'm sorry" payment.
What I should not get is multiple-millions of dollars because I'm going to walk with a slight limp for the rest of my life.
Bottom line is this: if I'm injured, I should be indemnified. That means I should be put back to the financial position I was at before the injury. I should not benefit from that injury.
I don't know what's worse: the fact that so many of us Americans try to retire in our 30's by winning the Lawsuit Lottery, or that there are more than enough lawyers who are willing to sell their souls to help.
So yeah, Coward at Comment#5... bash Doctors all you want... Bitch about how they make money and have nice stuff. You know what? They fucking earned it. That's who's keeping us alive. That's who's motivated themselves to endless education (they're not done after med-school, you know) in order to help other people get better... to make a positive difference in the world. How many doctors do you know decided to become a doctor as a get-rich-quick scheme? So, next time you decide to make a forum entry just so you can show how cool you are by using trite, overused and unoriginal net speak... how about we think a bit first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #17
The thing that's out of hand and that needs to be reformed is the "pain and suffering" claims. If yon Dr. makes a mistake while performing his duties on me, I would expect compensation for the added costs of fixing that mistake. That would include any costs for rehabilitation, added inconvenience (i.e. opening my home's doorways to make it wheelchair compatible), and maybe a bit of an "I'm sorry" payment.
I agree. I personally think a lawsuit should only cover medical damages which includes rehab and having to readjust you life for the injury (such as paying for a handicap tag for your car, widening hallways for wheelchair access, etc...) and lost wages if you can return to work. If the injury prevents you from working for the rest of your life then and only then should the suit be significantly increased because it's the fault of the one that injured you that you can't work anymore. However like you say people get out of hand with numbers.
Some do it becuase they actually want less so they take the RIAA approach and start high and settle for less.
Some do it because they are just trying to get rich. Contrary to what you think you don't deserve $30 million for losing a finger.
And some sue for some off the wall amount of money becuase they simply know that that law firm working their case is gonna take at least 1/3 as soon as the judge bangs the gavel to end the case.
I know that lawyers go through a lot to make in their profession (several years of schooling that costs a lot of money) but is it really fair that they take 1/3+ of a client's winnings? When it's all said and done the client is leaving the courtroom with those injuries and has to figure out how to properly use the remaining money to live and the lawyer will shake the client's hand hop in his $100K car and ride off in the sunset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Post 17
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Post 17
But let's look at this realistically here...
"How much is being able to play airplane with your child or jog with your dog to you?"
That's the kind of mentality that makes the lawyers drool. How is $5mil (number from thin air here), of which you only get a small portion, going to make up for it? Are you going to use that money to hire a person to play airplane with your kid? Are you going to pay someone to jog with your dog then tell you about it? BS. That large chunk of pain & suffering money is not used to ease P&S, it's used to make people rich. And if being rich is a good trade-off for playing with your kids... yeah. Find me one person who'd agree to that. I agree that a price or a limit cannot be placed on those kinds of things. I will also say that the answer is not "let's rub it with money until it doesn't hurt anymore".
I see where you're coming from on the idea of limits. At first blush, having someone tell you "your pain and suffering is limited to $XX" can sound pretty insulting. "How dare you tell me how much I'm suffering!".
No. What I'm talking about is limiting the amount of money you get for that.
Loss of income and loss of earning capacity is different. That can be qualified and quantified. You can sit down a math that out.
And above all, what about society on a whole. We've seen that uncapped P&S awards have driven up healthcare costs to the point that a good majority of our citizens cannot even afford to go to a doctor. We've seen that the current system is flawed. We've seen that the root of that flaw is uncontrolled litigation and P&S awards. Why not change that.
You say it shouldn't be changed, but I say it must change. Otherwise, nothing will ever be fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Post 17
I coached High School baseball and a 16 year old player was injured when hit by a UPS driver who was later to be found high on drugs at the time of the accident. The kid had hip replacement surgery as well as 5 other operations, spanning 6 months time. He is in perpetual rehab and will be for life. He can walk, talk and even jog but with some pain afterwards. He was scouted by 8 MLB teams at the time of the accident. The doctor's did a great job piecing him back together.
Point being, what is the pain that wakes him at night sobbing worth? How about the loss of playing professional baseball, which was his dream since 5 years old and something in which he gave up thousands of hours of youth to get better at. How about the fact that he can't play the game AT ALL FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, his favorite thing to do.
After medical expenses, he walked away from court with about $5MIL. Under the scenario of tort reform, he would get what $80K for the loss of almost all that is important to him in life. He is now a 28 year old man and a volunteer coach for me. He still cries when we talk about it and he will never get over it.
12 years later and he has not gotten over it. He lost his dreams and everything that he worked his ass off to achieve. What is that worth to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Post 17
And again... how will money make that all better? If he still cries about it after 12 years, if he is still that emotionally damaged, how has that $5mil helped? How has his pain and suffering been alleviated?
I would say add counseling to the medical rehabilitation. That would be a hellova lot more appropriate than just dumping money on the problem.
Counseling, and all of the expenses you stated, is something that can be calculated. No, you can't predict the future, but you can statistically predict it with startling accuracy.
A lot of people's dreams are shattered by events beyond their control. What about them? What happens when there's not a specific person or persons to blame for the injury? Should they sue god/fate/nature? What happens if the wind blows a tree down onto my house, crushing me in my bed? What about my pain and suffering?
Just because there is a set of pockets in sight, doesn't mean that P&S should be paid until the person feels better. No disrespect to the person in your example... but we can't rely on the idea of "until you feel better". Human greed will leave that door open forever.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be compensated for their loss. I'm not saying that P&S is not a form of loss. But there should be a limit placed on it. Currently, we rely on the definition of "reasonable". That obviously has not worked to this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Post 17
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Post 17
Unfortunately, it seems that "others of us" do not refrain from skewing statements far out of context simply to make an ad hominem attack.
If you want to take that interpretation from what I've said, then more power to you. There is little hope of swaying such a closed mind and I won't even waste my time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Post 17
What do you need the poster's ID for? A little intimidation?
Care to post YOUR real name, address, phone number, etc.?
Didn't think so (NOT a big surprise).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Post 17
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Know Not What They Do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They Know Not What They Do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm, not so fast
They refused to give me the proper medication. 1 week later my roomate gets VERY ill. Goes to his doctor which he has health coverage for. Diagnoses Pneumonia, he comes home with a mask and information about how easy it is to contract from others.
I go back to the clinic with my info, and they now give me the drugs.
THIS is professional? Going on MY word? Not SPENDING the money to give me test for Penumonia?
Stop pointing the fingers JUST at lawyers, Doctors are pretty friggin bad too. They dismiss you in 5 minutes, hate when you bring in a grocery list of ailments that you are having and generally are dimissive.
The legal system as well as the health care system are corrupt beyond all hope. Its a question of which came first, the chiken or the egg.
Both should be rejected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No more PC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No more PC
As for your blockbuster example, it illustrates the ignorance of most people about the point behind such suits. Blockbuster overcharged millions of dollars. They just did it in small increments. Who can afford to take on Blockbuster over a few dollars? Does that mean it's okay for Blockbuster to steal money from all of its customers as long as they take from everyone and only a little bit? Of course not. So, how do you stop it? You band everyone together in a class and you sue them. The lawyers who took it on agreed to fight a billion dollar corporation knowing that they could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in time and get nothing. The outcome of the case is that Blockbuster had to give a coupon to everyone it stole from (which cost each Blockbuster customer nothing), the lawyers got paid for their time and the risk in taking the case and Blockbuster not only stopped the practice, but paid enough to have an incentive not to do it again. Thus, every Blockbuster customer got something now and going forward that they would not have had without lawyers willing to go to bat for them all as a whole. And, it cost them nothing.
You'll find that most class action lawsuits are similar. The point is that too many companies beleive they can damage millions of people only a little bit and can get away with it. Class actions operate under the priniciple that no company has the right to steal, defraud, injure or otherwise damage its customers, regardless of the amount involved for each individual. Without these suits, corporations would have free reign to do such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No more PC
"But corporation xyz took 99 cents from you, it isn't fair, we are defending your rights, joe consumer."
nobody asked you too johnny lawyer. You don't speak for me. Go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vexatious litigents
If someone is declared to be such a thing (I have no idea how the process works) their ability to bring suit is severly restricted.
IIRC, People become declared Vexatious Litigators after a history of repeated hopefless abuse in bringing suits.
Is it possible such a thing exists in the U.S and could be brought to bear on the RIAA?
I would imagine it doesn't exist in the U.S, and even if it did it'd probably require court cases to have been concluded repeatedly wtih decisions against the RIAA (when none have ever come to a conclusion in trial).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vexatious litigents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Post 17
No, I did not compare suing doctors to suing god. I did not state that the two were comparible. You drew that (incorrect) conclusion.
My statement was to draw into question whether a lawsuit or a P&S claim is something that is indemnify an injury. My point was: if no one is to blame, and the lawsuits makes it all better, who should be sued?
If you read the full post from which you quoted, you'd see that I was not talking about the full lawsuit in general. I was talking about the P&S claims that do little to ease pain & suffering.
And the ad hominem attack was way you skewed my words with the intent to make my statements seem over-simplified and to belittle me in the face of the "others of us [who] know better in the first place".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tort Reform Misinformation
If lawyers were truly the problem, significant tort reform would result in lower insurance premiums, right? No state that has enacted tort reform has seen a significant drop in med-mal rates. Only California has seen such a drop and only because it enacted insurance reform requiring premiums to actually be tied to actuarial risk, as opposed to using premiums to offset other business losses.
As for the contingency fee system, it is the only way poor litigants can assert their rights. Lawyers take a contingency case knowing that they may spend years litigating against a wealthy corporation and receive nothing at the end. The system thus allows for large recoveries in some cases to offset losses in others. Also, it allows Plaintiff's lawyers to take cases where damages may not be as important as principle. Without this kind of system, only the wealthy could afford to seek redress of their grievances.
Also, about 5% of the doctors commit about 50% of the malpractice. Yet, in my home state of Oklahoma, it appears that not a single doctor has ever lost a license due to committing multiple malpractice. Sleep with a patient or give out drugs and you're gone. Commit gross negligence over and over and you're okay. I once had a client who had been sued 8 times for malpractice and his insurer had settled every one. He was still practicing.
Finally, I find it interesting that so many people believe that a jury is intelligent enough to determine whether someone should be executed or spend the remainder of their life imprisoned, but not intelligent enough to decide how much to award someone who has been injured by the negligence of another.
I have personally been an advocate of comprehensive reform, not just "reform" designed to limit access to the courts for the poor. There are certainly some legal reforms that make sense. Adopting the federal summary judgment rules in state courts, setting a P&S limit (well above $250,000), but a limit nonetheless and discouraging the small number of truly frivolous lawsuits by punishing the attorneys that file them. However, these reforms will change nothing if they aren't coupled with insurance reform, such as tying premium increases to increases in actuarial risk and medical reform, such as drastically increasing the administrative prosecution of bad doctors. Do all three and you'll have a system that compensates victims, punishes wrongdoers, protects the innocent and keeps costs down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you say that, that makes you a liar!
Besides you cannot steal copyrigth; when you steal something, ANYTHING, the rigthful owner is no longer in possesion of what you stole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA and Doctors
As for the RIAA this is clearly an anti trust issue. For the various members of the recording industry to pool together so they can keep cd prices artificially high is a clear violation of antitrust laws. But good luck on that front with these no bid contract cocksucking pediphile oil barrons running the country.
And yes, I hope your offended. You should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice: No Equity, No Dependability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]