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?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 7:43am

    Because basic citizens can't change the minds of idiotic, money grubbing suits that have the government so very often in their pocket?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 8:15am

    Actually, the claim of racketeering is what will get the details of how the RIAA and MediaSentry work. As Wired reported , the RIAA can't hold things up by moving to dismiss this amended complaint: things are going to discovery if the judge finds that the complaint alleges the right facts. Remember that the original complaint was dismissed, but allowed to be amended, if it met a specific list of pleading requirements that the judge provided. One would assume the amended complaint would comply with the judge's request.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 8:16am

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 8:23am

    why not focus on leading the industry down the path where it realizes it doesn't need to sue its fans to make money?


    What, by stop stealing their products?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Mar 17th, 2008 @ 8:46am

    Re:

    You give me one Wired story, and I'll give you another:

    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/riaa-racketeeri.html

    this case is no slam dunk...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Permanent4, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 8:48am

    Tanya Andersen isn't the right person for that job

    C'mon, Mike, what's Tanya Andersen going to do, hold a symposium with record execs that explains how the labels can come up with new ideas in the digital age? Those execs have no clue who Tanya Andersen is, nor do they care.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 8:50am

    Re:

    If it's "theft", why are the cases always brought as copyright infringement?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Monarch, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 8:53am

    Re: Anonymous Coward post 4

    "What, by stop stealing their products?"

    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!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Matt, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 8:56am

    its tough to say this time

    Remember. All that's required for a Rico charge per Wikipedia (and the gov't) is any 2 of the 37 things have to be charged, and Tanya has 3.
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    James, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 9:21am

    Idiots

    These idiots have had roughly 10 years to figure out a way to monetize content delivery through the internet and the best they can come up with is suing their "potential" customers and groaning about Apple.

    More power to you Ms. Andersen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Liquid, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 9:45am

    here is a good story for ya

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 11:03am

    Have they paid her yet ?
    Or do I have this confused with a different case ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 11:25am

    "why not focus on leading the industry down the path where it realizes it doesn't need to sue its fans to make money?"

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 1:46pm

    "why not focus on leading the industry down the path where it realizes it doesn't need to sue its fans to make money?"

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Chris, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 1:47pm

    You can't shut "the Machine" down... its too big, and too much steam. The only way they are going to see a huge change is on the music industry side, where the artists will have to demand change.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Chiropetra, Mar 17th, 2008 @ 7:23pm

    Tanya Anderson and RIAA Racketeering

    Arguing over whether Ms. Anderson can win her racketeering case or not utterly misses the point.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2008 @ 1:34pm

    Re: Tanya Anderson and RIAA Racketeering

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    HiddenShaman, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 5:33am

    Re: Tanya Andersen isn't the right person for that job

    I know Tanya and family. They suffered from these invasive tactics. WRONGLY targeted, they deserve to be compensated for mental and emotional trauma. She had better things to do, headed for paralegal. Shiver fatcat motherfuckers, I'll never buy another CD at K-Mart.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    HiddenShaman, Jan 17th, 2010 @ 5:33am

    Re: Tanya Andersen isn't the right person for that job

    I know Tanya and family. They suffered from these invasive tactics. WRONGLY targeted, they deserve to be compensated for mental and emotional trauma. She had better things to do, headed for paralegal. Shiver fatcat motherfuckers, I'll never buy another CD at K-Mart.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This