| Subject: Racketeering Suit Against RIAA |
Author:
Betty
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:07:57 02/20/04 Fri
In reply to:
Betty
's message, "RIAA & goofy laws." on 17:09:22 02/01/04 Sun
Proposed Racketeering Suit Against RIAA Called 'Absurd'
By Gene J. Koprowski
TechNewsWorld
February 20, 2004
"Litigation is their Prozac," Wayne Russo, CEO of Optisoft, a developer of P2P technology, located in Madrid and London, told TechNewsWorld. "[The RIAA is] just not happy unless they're suing somebody."
Real-time Meetings, Less Travel and Cost
Try Microsoft® Office Live Meeting, the new Web meeting service that makes it easy to collaborate with groups of all sizes, right from your desk. Swap ideas, share information & mark up files. And get 30 days of Web meetings free. www.startmeetingnow.com/go/live
A proposed federal lawsuit by a woman in New Jersey alleging racketeering by major music labels is "preposterous" and has little chance of prevailing, entertainment industry lawyers tell TechNewsWorld.
The forthcoming lawsuit by Michele Scimeca, said to be a countersuit against members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), comes as the woman tries to fight off a claim that she allegedly uploaded 1,400 copyrighted songs over the Kazaa peer-to-peer network.
The woman claims her 13-year-old daughter downloaded the songs for a school project.
"The suit, at least on its face, is absurd," Thomas G. Field, Jr., a professor of law at the Franklin Pierce Law Center, a leading law school, told TechNewsWorld in an interview.
Another lawyer, leading entertainment law attorney Jay Cooper of the Los Angeles office of Greenberg Traurig, told TechNewsWorld that the lawsuit is "preposterous."
"It's so obviously illegal when someone steals another person's property. Of course they have every right to sue," added Cooper, who is the former president of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences and the California Copyright Conference.
An entertainment law attorney with Chadbourne & Parke, Michael Graif, told TechNewsWorld that he "agrees" the proposed suit probably has no merit.
Word of the forthcoming lawsuit emerged earlier this week when a media industry trade magazine reported Scimeca had filed a lawsuit under the antimobster statute, the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known by the acronym RICO.
A call by TechNewsWorld to the clerk of the U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey, on Friday, February 20, 2004, however, indicated that Scimeca still has not formally filed the claim. The court clerk told TechNewsWorld that Sony (NYSE: SNE) Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings and Motown filed a lawsuit against Scimeca on December 3, 2003, under the U.S. Copyright Act.
The court clerk said the last filing in the case was on February 9, 2004, by Scimeca, "making an application to extend time" to file a response to the Sony suit.
Burden of Proof
U.S. District Judge William J. Martini has been assigned to hear the original complaint, whose case number is 03CV5757.
The burden of proof in a racketeering case is quite high. According to lawyers, before civil liability can emerge under the racketeering laws, the complainant must demonstrate that the culpable person has committed two or more acts of racketeering.
The racketeering must include two unlawful acts, usually involving intimidation, violence or fraud.
Mobsters and thugs who interfere with interstate commerce are the targets of the federal statute under which Scimeca may bring suit. The law was passed in 1970 to prevent racketeering.
To be sure, to a regular person, receiving a letter about a lawsuit from a lawyer might feel like an act of intimidation, but, if the case is based on facts and supported by law and evidence, no judge would ever likely agree that it constituted an act of racketeering, lawyers say.
Scimeca may have a defense to the lawsuit by the music companies, however. If her child was the individual who downloaded copyrighted songs illegally, and was not acting as the agent of the mother, the mother might not be liable. "I doubt that parents are liable if kids shoplift, for example, although they might lose custody if the situation is egregious," said Field, the law professor.
But lawyers from the music companies could defeat an argument like that by demonstrating that the mother was the party who paid for the online access and was responsible for the activity on the account. Lawsuits by the record industry are being used to stop the dramatic decline in sales of recorded music, said to be 45 percent of volume during the last four years, and said to be a factor pushing music makers and distributors, such as Tower Records, into bankruptcy or insolvency.
The right of artists to copyright work is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. But the suits by the music industry are not popular among many devotees of file sharing.
"Litigation is their Prozac," said Wayne Russo, CEO of Optisoft, a developer of P2P technology, located in Madrid and London. "They're just not happy unless they're suing somebody."
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 