Tanya Andersen Refiles Racketeering Charges Against RIAA; But Don't Get Too Excited
from the still-a-long-shot... dept
As was widely expected, Tanya Andersen has refiled her class action racketeering charges against the RIAA. This is a refiling of a case that was dismissed last month. At the time, we noted that the case could be refiled, but it would be very difficult for Andersen to prove the racketeering charges. While a bunch of tech blogs last week made it sound like this refiling would somehow "force" the RIAA (and MediaSentry) to open up the details of how it investigates file sharing, that assumes the case actually gets somewhere. Again, while it may be emotionally appealing to accuse the RIAA of racketeering, there needs to be a lot more proof. While it would be fascinating to get the inside details of how these investigations go, unless there's more proof of racketeering, it's not clear this case will get very far at all. Instead of focusing on unlikely to succeed lawsuits against the RIAA, why not focus on leading the industry down the path where it realizes it doesn't need to sue its fans to make money?
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
Filed Under: racketeering
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether the RICO claim gets "very far" is irrelevant here because the info as to how the RIAA operates will need come out in discovery. Even if RICO fails, the info from discovery (if made publicly available) could be used in other suits under different theories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/riaa-racketeeri.html
this case is no slam dunk...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What, by stop stealing their products?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward post 4
I've never stolen a product from an entertainment conglomerate, but I have downloaded files that contain entertainment industry music and film.
Most of the time I've downloaded, and then purchased the products when the products were finally placed up for purchase, such as DVD's. However, I've never stolen any music or movie, because that would be depriving someone of their right to listen or watch the entertainment medium.
See, BIG difference between stealing and copyright infringement.
OH YEAH, there is less of an penalty to steal it, than to commit copyright infringement! Maybe I should start shoplifting and stealing it, heck I'd save money also!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tanya Andersen isn't the right person for that job
Tanya probably just wants to prevent anyone else from being put through the RIAA wringer unfairly like she was -- or she just wants a pound of flesh, and this is how to get it. Even if it doesn't succeed, it's worth a shot to bring the RIAA down a peg. It's taken far too long for that to happen, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tanya Andersen isn't the right person for that job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tanya Andersen isn't the right person for that job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its tough to say this time
They could also go for a SLAPP lawsuit. I think SLAPP would be easier than a RICO since the one would come before the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots
More power to you Ms. Andersen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here is a good story for ya
Kinda interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or do I have this confused with a different case ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step out of the fantasy world, Mike. The music industry isn't going to adapt to the new way of doing things unless they are FORCED to. History has shown, time and again, that the entertainment companies have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the new age.
Remember the attempt to outlaw VCRs? How the MPAA said it would be 'the death of theaters'? Or what about their claims that television would kill movies? It's the exact same situation playing itself over again.
As post #10 said, they've had ten years to get with the program, and are still fighting tooth and claw to keep from adapting. It's obvious that they are not going to willingly change. It's going to take this and other lawsuits to drag them in the 21st century and the new economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it does (at least, according to the way they run the industry now). They do need to sue their fans, because they need to keep control over distribution, so that they can determine what is going to get popular and what will not. They invest huge amounts of money in marketing, and they feel the need to make the greatest possible return on that investment (as they've always been able to do in the past). They can only do that by maintaining tight control over distribution, deciding what people will hear the most (and, thus, what is most likely to become popular and make their initial marketing investment profitable).
They may lose a few dollars in the short term by suing their fans, but in the long run it's worth it to them to maintain their absolute control over all distribution of music.
You can keep trying to tell them that it's not in their best interest to sue their fans, but don't expect them to take you seriously!
It does no good to try to convince them not to be the way they are because they'll lose some fans and a little money. The only thing that could possibly do any good is to finally convince them that no matter what they do, sooner or later it's inevitable that they will lose their stranglehold on the marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good examples of a pioneers of this new direction is Radiohead. They've made sooo much more money doing it on their own that other artists should follow suit when their contracts reach their end. Record labels will hopefully then see this transition and adjust accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tanya Anderson and RIAA Racketeering
The thing that's going to the damage to the RIAA and its stooges is what's going to come out in the discovery proceedings. Who ultimately wins is pretty much moot.
Discovery will kick over a lot of RIAA rocks and all the vile, squirmy things underneath are going to be exposed to the harsh light of public scrutiny.
Some bloggers may not appreciate this, but I'll guarantee the RIAA does. Ms. Anderson is in for a big, BIG payday as the suits and their lawyers try desperately to make this go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tanya Anderson and RIAA Racketeering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]