Review of Get Smart and Wall-E! The RIAA wants extra fees from radio broadcasters

Tanya Andersen gets $100,000 in legal fees for RIAA case that got dismissed

Woman auctions herself off along with home

Tiger Wood's apple goes for $36,000 on Ebay, and a 7 year old goes on a joy ride in Florida

Tanya, (cuya discapacidad no conocemos pero sí tenemos claro que los debe tener bien puestos) optó por ir a juicio antes que pagar los 4.000 dólares para llegar a un acuerdo. Los abogados de la RIAA no parecen tenerlos tan bien puestos como ella, porque le propusieron retirar la demanda si nuestra heroína acordaba no emprender acciones legales contra ellos. Tanya no aceptó y la RIAA fue condenada a abonar los costes del juicio, alrededor de 300.000 dólares.

No contenta con esto, Tanya contratacó demandando la RIAA, la SSC, MediaSentry, Warner Music Group, EMI Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, y Universal Music, al considera que los datos recopilados por MediaSentry por encargo de la RIAA y que sirvieron para iniciar la campaña de acoso judicial contra particulares podían contener errores que pueden haber llevado a acusar de forma errónea a unas 8.000 personas. Además, los abogados de Tanya van a denunciar a la RIAA por cargo de conspiración, negligencia y abuso en proceso judicial, solicitando 5 millones de dólares de compensación.

La RIAA puede verse atrapada por la misma campaña judicial que inició, ha conseguido la antipatía de millones de usuarios en todo el mundo y puede verse condenada a desembolsar millones de dólares, para aderezar su ridículo más absoluto. El cazador cazado.

Artículo de Business Week traducido en GurusBlog.

Apparently, the RIAA is not reaching its publics about illegal downloads, despite its staunch stance against pirating. People continue to illegally download regardless of facing a potential lawsuit.

I blame this negative attitude toward the RIAA due to its mishandling of the illegal downloads. Just look at this case of the RIAA suing Tanya Andersen, a single mom living in Portland.

(Photo of Tanya Andersen courtesy of BusinessWeek)

Four years ago, Andersen and the RIAA began a bitter battle over illegal downloading. The industry group said that Andersen had to pay them about $4,000 dollars, or she would go bankrupt from court fees. Andersen contended that she never downloaded illegally. Eventually, the RIAA dropped the lawsuit due to lack of evidence.

Anderson fought the RIAA for three years; now, she putting legal pressure on them. She has filed a lawsuit against the RIAA for conspiracy laws and invasion of personal privacy. Her confrontation with the RIAA has produced a number of problems for the trade industry group, including that fact that the RIAA may have misidentified illegal music consumers up to 20 percent of the time.

For this case involving Andersen, the RIAA or the record labels wished not to comment. Why the secrecy? Why the rejection of journalists? By neglecting to respond to people, the RIAA is engaging in only one-way communication with its publics. To make matters worse, the RIAA forces its message of “piracy is bad news” upon people without any room for discussion.

To earn respect among people, the RIAA must steer away from guilt-tripping people and engage in more earnest arguments. Until then, people will continue abuse digital piracy and bypass buying music.

This week, BusinessWeek published an article outlining how the RIAA attempted to squeeze $5,000 from an innocent, disabled, single mother by falsely claiming she had illegally downloaded pirated music over the Internet. The RIAA got its information from MediaSentry who got it through Verizon. They threatened her over the phone. They sent somebody to her home. They got a court order and took her computer. After all of this, when she went to court, they couldn't provide a shred of hard evidence proving she had done anything wrong. The judge dismissed the case, made the RIAA pay the lawyer's fees, and talked about how wrong they are in their practices against innocent individuals. She is now suing the RIAA back. You really should read the BusinessWeek article. It is very eye-opening.

Now answer these questions: Does this sound like the activity of an industry that wants to keep their customers? Does knowing they are doing this to your friends and neighbors make you want to give them more of your money?

This evil treatment of their customers is precisely why I have boycotted buying new recordings for the past 8 years. I listen to Internet radio, XM radio, and the collection of 700 CDs I bought before the recording industry started doing all of this stuff. I support independent artists whenever possible. Prior to my boycott, I bought at least 2 CDs a week, but I refuse to give those companies any more of my money. I will personally be thrilled when the current RIAA member companies all go bankrupt and are replaced by a whole new music industry run by digital age companies who take good care of their artists and their customers using modern, efficient distribution methods to keep costs low. In my opinion, the old farts running the member companies of the RIAA are pure evil, taking care of nobody but themselves.

Who tops the "BAD GUYS" list helping to pull this evil behavior off?

Richard L. Gabriel - Lead National Counsel for the RIAA and a partner at the Denver law firm Holme, Roberts, & Owen. I don't know how this guy sleeps at night, although I'm sure he has all the money he could possibly want. Maybe all that money can buy him a soul someday.

Denver law firm Holme, Roberts, & Owen - even more evil than the average law firm?

MediaSentry - company that snoops into the data of private individuals for the RIAA - they have wrongly accused at least 8,000 individuals who all paid fines after strong arm tactics by the SSC - see below

Settlement Support Center (SSC) - company created by the RIAA to threaten consumers until they pay fines, even when they aren't guilty of any wrongdoing

Members of the RIAA, who obviously HATE their customers: This includes:
Warner Music Group
EMI Group
Sony BMG Music Entertainment
Universal Music Group

The saddest part of all of this is the fact that they have been doing all of this under the radar for years. Until now, nobody has challenged them. They have lobbied Congress to pass laws allowing them to snoop around like this with very little responsibility for what they are doing. They have pursued 40,000 individuals and collected fines from all of them even though 8,000 of those folks were not guilty of anything. Yet, nobody really pays any attention to any of it. I think it is about time everyone took a hard look at what these companies are doing and held them accountable.

The best way to stop these evil companies from doing these types of activities is to completely stop buying their products. Period. Don't buy them at Walmart. Don't buy them at Best Buy. Don't buy them online. If we stop buying their products, new artists will stop signing with them. If we stop buying long enough, they will go bankrupt and disappear, allowing more responsive technology-based companies to step in and take their place.

For example, if Apple decided to create an "iRecords" record label to sign new artists and distribute them through iTunes, I would start buying those recordings tomorrow. If Amazon started a record label and signed new artists for electronic distribution, I would buy those, too. We need modern companies with brains to take over music distribution. The old dinosaur recording companies are so evil toward their customers and their artists, that they frankly don't deserve our support. I say boycott all of them and let them fade into oblivion. It is time for a new, improved music industry to emerge! I'm ready. Are you?

-----

Final note: The RIAA lists a lot of "member companies" on its web site to look impressive. In reality, a lot of those companies listed are NOT members of the RIAA. These companies are distributors that report to the RIAA. The list I gave above are the actual full members. See this page for an explanation.