New Jersey Mom Sues RIAA under RICO Statutes

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-5/107708869350700.xml">http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-5/107708869350700.xml</a><br /><br />We've discussed the <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14949">gestapo tactics of the RIAA</a> in the past. It seems one mom in New Jersey is turning the tables on the RIAA.<br /><br />"The music industry considers Michele Scimeca a pirate. The Morris County mom has her own term for record executives: Racketeers. In what legal experts described as a novel strategy, Scimeca is citing federal racketeering laws like the one that jailed mob boss John Gotti to countersue record labels that accused her in December of sharing some 1,400 copyrighted songs over the Internet."<br /><br />Go get 'em. :evil:

[ricksfiona]

Oooh, I like this... The RIAA is going to look like total jerks trying to sue a mom.... :lol:

[Pat Logsdon]

Oooh, I like this... The RIAA is going to look like total jerks trying to sue a mom.... :lol:
Well, they didn't seem to care too much when they sued a grandfather (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3092854.stm) or a 12 year old girl (http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5073717.html?tag=nl)...

[Foo Fighter]

Regardless of what boneheaded tactics the RIAA uses...downloading music via P2P networks is illegal. And those who engage in this practice deserve prosecution. Downloading "free" music is no different than shoplifting at Sam Goody.

[c38b2]

Downloading "free" music is no different than shopplifting at Sam Goody.
I won't argue that it isn't wrong or a crime or illegal, but saying it's no different than shoplifting is a little bit of a stretch. It's more like someone bought the CD, made tons of copies of it and left them lying on the street. Sure, the copies are illegal but the criminals are the ones who copied and mass-distributed them. :|

[Jacob]

Regardless of what boneheaded tactics the RIAA uses...downloading music via P2P networks is illegal. And those who engage in this practice deserve prosecution. Downloading "free" music is no different than shopplifting at Sam Goody.

Right, but you don't sued to the tune of $150,000 per song if you shoplift a CD from Sam Goody ;)

[MasterOfMoo]

:lol:
Here, here!

I'm not even going to begin debating the sides in P2P music sharing, because there are slew of these already available on the 'net. As for the woman's actions, I applaud her. The stance of the RIAA has been far too despotic from my viewpoint.

I'll be interested to see how this one turns out.

- Moo

[jpaq]

I'm waiting on someone to go after the RIAA for ani-trust violations.......

Hmmmm?

If this RICO case gets anywhere, I think anti-trust would be an even stronger argument.

[MasterOfMoo]

Right, but you don't sued to the tune of $150,000 per song if you shoplift a CD from Sam Goody ;)

http://www.wisinfo.com/journal/spjlocal/282554666309146.shtml

Especially considering shoplifting fines for low dollar items usually are in the range of $250'ish.

Let's see:

Approx 10 songs (varies, of course) = 1 CD
1 CD = Approx $15.00-$20.00 (falling under the $50-mark noted in the article I linked, thereby basing this on the $250 fine)


10 songs = $250 fine
1 song = $25 fine

or with the RIAA

1 song = $150,000 fine
1 CD (10 songs) = $1,500,000 fine

I don't think Sam Goody would get away with that, why does the RIAA?

[Ed Hansberry]

Regardless of what boneheaded tactics the RIAA uses...downloading music via P2P networks is illegal. And those who engage in this practice deserve prosecution. Downloading "free" music is no different than shoplifting at Sam Goody.
100% in agreement, but prosecution is to be done within your civil rights, and the tactics the RIAA used can be seen to violate those rights.

[D.psi]

Downloading "free" music is no different than shopplifting at Sam Goody.
I won't argue that it isn't wrong or a crime or illegal, but saying it's no different than shoplifting is a little bit of a stretch. It's more like someone bought the CD, made tons of copies of it and left them lying on the street. Sure, the copies are illegal but the criminals are the ones who copied and mass-distributed them. :|

Actually, I think the issue quickly dissolves into how many copies are allowed under fair use? The record and print industries rely on a market model that guarantees that if we use their product we will in some way damage the product. As book, tape or record get used they eventually degrade in quality; over time even CDs degrade. So they allow limited fair use duplication of the materiel to satisfy end users.

With digital media (CDs, e-books), it is much easier to provide identical copies, and that's where the problems come in. The print and record industry charge much more for the goods they sell, than the materials and production costs, and I doubt the authors get a significant portion of the difference.

I think most users have no problem paying the authors of the work, but when you look at industries who rely on the fact that you will (eventually) have to repurchase the same intellectual property because the medium has worn out or is no longer supported, the people question the fair use of the original item.

IMHO, the print and record industry's market model is fundamentally flawed, they are relying on a continuing stream of income for goods that are costing them pennies (when they get to reprints), however the price doesn't budge. Think about it for a while. I'm not encouraging either side in this argument, but then again neither side is being reasonable.

D.psi

[jhayter]

Sorry to be the grammar police, but the headline should read "New Jersey Mom Sues RIAA under RICO Statutes." Not statues of a guy named Rico.

[Steven Cedrone]

Sorry to be the grammar police, but the headline should read "New Jersey Mom Sues RIAA under RICO Statutes." Not statues of a guy named Rico.

It does say that! :wink: Fixed, thanks!

Steve

[JvanEkris]

Regardless of what boneheaded tactics the RIAA uses...downloading music via P2P networks is illegal. And those who engage in this practice deserve prosecution. Downloading "free" music is no different than shoplifting at Sam Goody.I agree on that point, however, the tactics used by the RIAA are simply absurd.

By threatning people to fight a long legal battle against an army of specialised lawyers with the potential of extreme fines, people are basically forced to pay whatever the other party is offering in a settlement out of court. I recon that that happends even when people are innocent: it is basic economics. No case has stood the test of the court yet. No judge to decide what is realistic and according to the letter of the law. By doing so, the RIAA has become a cop, judge and executioner in one, with the ultimate goal to persue as much people as possible. IMHO, the RIAA is abusing it's luxury financial position to threaten en retrieve money from people who are not so powerfull in their legal defence.

I am sincerely thankfull that these tactics are blocked by dutch law. Only a judge can handle this, based on legal proof, and not RIAA or any of their equivalents......

Jaap

[Paul Martin]

I'd say it's about time. I have watched with frustration the RIAA steamroll over anyone they want. Personally, I've never used a file sharing program, but from the things I'm reading, it's very likely at least some people are sharing copies of songs without even knowing it.

Regardless, it seems the punishment seems very much out of proportion to the crime committed. It almost seems the equivalent of a $200,000 fine for going 45 mph in a 35 mph speed zone.

[bjornkeizers]

Nice to see someone go on the offensive for a change. Personally, I don't care one bit about the legal issues of P2P, and in this case, that's not relevant anyway - this woman is simply doing to the RIAA what the RIAA has doing to us. I'd love to see them get f*****

[Christian]

I'd say it's about time. I have watched with frustration the RIAA steamroll over anyone they want. Personally, I've never used a file sharing program, but from the things I'm reading, it's very likely at least some people are sharing copies of songs without even knowing it.

Regardless, it seems the punishment seems very much out of proportion to the crime committed. It almost seems the equivalent of a $200,000 fine for going 45 mph in a 35 mph speed zone.

If anything, going 45 in a 35 mph speed zone should have a fine closer to $1,000,000 - to address that fact that speeding actually has the potential to harm someone. :roll: :takethat:

[Ed Hansberry]

Sorry to be the grammar police, but the headline should read "New Jersey Mom Sues RIAA under RICO Statutes." Not statues of a guy named Rico.

:bad-words:

Stupid spell checker. :roll:

[Paul Martin]

If anything, going 45 in a 35 mph speed zone should have a fine closer to $1,000,000 - to address that fact that speeding actually has the potential to harm someone.

Exactly...and yet an activity which has little potential physical harm has a much greater potential fine than one which could potentially end a life in the wrong circumstances. Of course, the speeding fine is assessed by the city or county; the $150k is imposed by the RIAA.

[Falstaff]

No case has stood the test of the court yet. No judge to decide what is realistic and according to the letter of the law. By doing so, the RIAA has become a cop, judge and executioner in one, with the ultimate goal to persue as much people as possible. IMHO, the RIAA is abusing it's luxury financial position to threaten en retrieve money from people who are not so powerfull in their legal defence.


Hopefully this case will start a trend. If you remember, there were 3 college students sued a long time ago and they each were able to raise $12,000+ to pay their fines simply by setting up PayPal accounts. If a person (or better yet a large group) who was sued, said they are going to take the case to trial (or countersues like this woman) they could probably recieve lots of money in donations from supporters to cover legal fees. All it would take is one lawsuit to go to trial and get overturned because of illegal practices employed by the RIAA or even if the amount was just reduced, the RIAA would soon be faced with many more people willing to stand up for themselves. I can't wait to see this reach trial. As someone on Geek.com said, the best thing would be if the RIAA offices and employee's homes get raided the RIAA has done in the past (most recently to Sharman Networks in Australia).

[Rob Alexander]

:soapbox: Listen, these guys only have power because we give it to them. All you folks who are so fed up with the RIAA, stop buying music from their members. (Don't pirate it either, that's the problem not the answer.) Do like Ed and find musicians who sell directly on the Net. Then email the musicians you like that work through labels and tell them you like their music, but you'll only buy it directly from them from now on. I haven't bought a CD since they started this legal witch hunt.

[Sheynk]

They are totalitarian dictators! screw them! If i payed my $$$ to buy a CD, I can do whatever I want with it. I can make copies and give it to my friends. I can use it as a frizbee. I can even use them as ...well you get the point

8) 0X

[Wiggster]

:soapbox: Listen, these guys only have power because we give it to them. All you folks who are so fed up with the RIAA, stop buying music from their members. (Don't pirate it either, that's the problem not the answer.) Do like Ed and find musicians who sell directly on the Net. Then email the musicians you like that work through labels and tell them you like their music, but you'll only buy it directly from them from now on. I haven't bought a CD since they started this legal witch hunt.

The problem with that is the RIAA keeps turning up declining sales numbers as a reason to initiate more lawsuits due to "increased illegal downloading". Of course, they think higher sales indicate that the oppressive lawsuits ARE working, so it's a double-edged sword.

[Jon Westfall]

Regardless of what boneheaded tactics the RIAA uses...downloading music via P2P networks is illegal. And those who engage in this practice deserve prosecution. Downloading "free" music is no different than shoplifting at Sam Goody.

I disagree. If a person mearly downloads music, in the technical sense, they are mearly transferring a freely available file from the internet to their computer, the same as viewing a copyright image that someone ELSE posted without permission. Are we supposed to now be charged for viewing images that are copyrighted?

If a company that has no legal right to do so were to send me a demo CD in the mail as a promotion, and then get caught, would I be responsible for the music since I might have say, signed up for the demo CD for free (i.e. joining a mailing list to get a freebie giveaway)?

The internet is nothing more than multiple downloads occuring every second. If some of it contains copyrighted material, tough for the copyright owners.

Now there is a difference between "Downloading 'free' music" and "downloading and then sharing again the 'free' music" or "ripping your CDs and sharing them as 'free' music".

Jon.

[beq]

100% in agreement, but prosecution is to be done within your civil rights, and the tactics the RIAA used can be seen to violate those rights.That's a good point...