Class Action Suit Against RIAA Can Proceed 133
fourohfour writes "Ars Technica is running a story on Tanya Andersen, who was awarded attorney fees in September of last year after the RIAA dropped their case against her. The RIAA subsequently appealed that award, but a US District Court judge yesterday not only upheld the award, but also upheld the dismissal of her counterclaims without prejudice. They may now be heard as part of a malicious prosecution lawsuit against the RIAA. Andersen is seeking class action status for her lawsuit, so that anyone else who has not engaged in illegal file sharing but has been threatened with legal action by the RIAA may join in. This is the case that alleges that the RIAA attempted to contact Andersen's then eight-year-old daughter under false pretenses without her permission."
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:5, Insightful)
Hope this opens the door for Extortion charges (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they should hammer the media companies on conspiracy charges because they are the ones knowingly financing the RIAAs shenanagins, that have already been proven illegal.
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oohhh yeeesss... but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just ever so slightly more than the lawyers will charge for their services...
Re:RIAA needs counseling (Score:2, Insightful)
Everybody knows that no amount of counseling will cure a person, unless that person's a congressman, then he'll go through rehab and be cured.
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is a good thing, since it would be evidence against all of us.
No, I'm not worried.
Seriously.
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What did they say to her daughter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:3, Insightful)
Gotcha.
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:2, Insightful)
Claim what you will of the RIAA. There's no doubt that they have lied and mislead to their utmost ability. But to claim that THEY are the ones who are responsible for the muddied waters misses the fact that the Judges are the ones who are making a final determination in many cases. It is the Judges whom are to blame even more than the RIAA. The Judges do not need to, nor should the have to, become technology experts. But the fact that many Judges do not understand the technology and do not care enough to even determine whether they know enough before they render a decision is a sad statement on our legal system. This is the reason why the RIAA has been able to successfully muddy the waters like they have.
When a case becomes more about the knowledge, perceived status of, and ability to misdirect and verbally spin words of the lawyers involved then justice, such as it is, has lost out to grandstanding. This is why these cases have fallen to the level that they have. All of these cases that I have seen should be easy to decide based on the actual laws and facts of the case. I'm not referring to the "I did it and I don't want to pay" defendants, nor am I singling out the award amounts (another topic all it's own). I'm referring to the simple matters of the actual laws and the real facts of the case.
Re:Is it too much to hope for criminal charges? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between jail and prison, despite the way these terms are used interchangeably. In general, prison is punishment for convicted criminals.
If you think about it a bit, it seems very difficult to create a system of justice whereby "presumed innocent" criminals can be permitted to roam free during the weeks or months of their trial. Crimes occur. Someone commits them. The chap you found may not actually be guilty. But if your policy is that you cannot apprehend someone until a court conviction, what guarantee do you have that the accused will stick around for the trial? The policy of arrest/jail/bail may have false positives. But a system of never putting someone into jail into convicted seems horribly naive. Either you don't let them know you're "proving them guilty" and just catch them when you've done so (which doesn't provide for a defense) or you let them know they're a suspect and politely request they don't bolt for Mexico and please don't kill anyone else while they're gathering evidence.
Having said that, we must have safeguards for Habeus Corpus and the right to a speedy trial for this to work. Otherwise, we devolve into a system whereby the police (or corrupt leaders) do indeed judge you guilty (or otherwise deserving of punishment/pain) and toss you into jail where you rot. Think "Les Miserables".
This is why the recent diminishments of Habeus Corpus and the fact that several people (US citizens apprehended in the US) have spent YEARS in Guantanamo Bay before any charges were filed are so incredibly troubling.
In principle, your view that we're "guilty until proven innocent" seems quite wrong. In practice, it also seems we're sliding somewhat in that direction.
Re:/. readers are excluded then (Score:3, Insightful)
If you wish to protect the rights of the masses, then you must accept that you'll take some losses as a result. If losses are not acceptable, then take away the rights. Only problem is... it won't be YOU taking away said rights, it will be whoever can get their hands on the most power the fastest under a system of brutal repression... but if that's what you'd prefer, far be it for me to stop you from voting for whoever promises to give it to you.