Earlier today we pointed to one way not to respond
to an RIAA lawsuit, but it appears there are a few more effective ways of fighting back. First, there were the cases that were dropped when the accused pointed out that many different people
may have been responsible. Second, there was the case that was dropped when the guy died and the RIAA was made to look insensitive
. Of course, they've also dropped a bunch of other cases in the past when it became clear that they had absolutely sued the wrong person, such as the time they sued Penn State Professor Peter Usher, assuming that some of his papers that were found on a file sharing system were music by the musician Usher
. The fact that the courts let them off easy for each of these types of mistakes only encourages them to file more lawsuits -- since mistakes have no real consequence. It's that last point that's the problem.
Earlier this week we pointed out that this had turned into a form of profitable lawsuit automation
that bordered on extortion. It appears that last word is the magic word. Just a day after one person accused of file sharing filed a response
that compared their tactics to extortion (while also pointing out she has no clue how to download music or what Kazaa is), the RIAA has dropped the case
. It's quite likely it was the "no idea how to download music" part, rather than the extortion claims that actually caused them to drop the case, but it did happen rather quickly. There have been cases
in the past that accused the RIAA of racketeering because of their lawsuits, but none have gone very far yet.