The RIAA is Evil: Most Outrageous Recording Industry Lawsuits
Saturday, September 12th, 2009
Yodle asked:
Point/Counterpoint Part I: The RIAA is Evil
It has been known for quite some time that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a “monster” in some of the most literal definitions of the word- it is a massive, powerful and hateful organization that preys on the defenseless with unflinching malice. Since 2003, they have filed over 35,000 lawsuits against any and every kind of person while being backed up by a force of thousands of formidable lawyers. And while some of these cases might have had legal ground to stand on, others have just been downright despicable. Whether it’s suing children or the deceased, the RIAA has proven that there are no depths too low for them to sink to.
So to give you an idea as to just how villainous they really are, we’ve compiled a list of the RIAA’s most outrageous and offensive lawsuits.
Laser Printer Pirate
If you thought that you had to be a human being to fall under the radar of the RIAA, guess again. Though technically not a lawsuit, the following case has become known as one of the funniest examples of the RIAA’s stupidity. In August 2007, 13 takedown notices were sent to the University of Washington demanding them to stop pirating music. However, what makes this story so ridiculous is that several of the machines accused of pirating music were actually laser printers connected to the school’s network. Now, I’m not sure how a laser printer would be able to download music but I’m assuming that it involves printing out the lyrics or something equally absurd- or it’s just a great example of the RIAA’s incompetence.
But despite the humorous nature of the story, the University of Washington wanted to prove that this is no laughing matter and published a report about the takedown notices to emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
“Our results show that potentially any Internet user is at risk for receiving [takedown notices] today. Whether a false positive sent to a user that has never even used BitTorrent or a truly infringing user that relies on incomplete IP blacklists, there is currently no way for anyone to wholly avoid the risk of complaints.”
No Computer, No Problem for the RIAA
To illustrate the point made in the University of Washington paper about nobody being safe from the RIAA – including those who have never even used Bittorrent – the next case involves a woman who has never even used a computer. Marie Lindor from Brooklyn, New York opened her mailbox one day probably expecting her normal flood of coupons and letters from grandchildren, but instead found a greeting card from the RIAA inviting her to either join them in the courtroom or pay a $4500 “No thank you” fee, otherwise known as a “settlement.”
So you might want to think that the RIAA dismissed the case after she patiently explained to them that she’s never used a computer, has no idea what a Bittorrent is and hasn’t heard of pirating outside of childhood stories about Blackbeard. But that’s not what happened – the RIAA has “principles.” Instead, they ignored the facts and pointed out that she had an unsecure wireless modem set up in her apartment from a few years back when her son had briefly set up a computer there for personal use. However, the dates the RIAA provided of when the pirating took place wasn’t even during that brief time period, so even this doesn’t explain anything.
In all likelihood, someone from another apartment connected without permission to her wireless modem and pirated music – since the modem was not password protected – and now she has to pay for it. Just one more lesson learnt about the dangers of both unencrypted wireless networks and evil soulless organizations like the RIAA.
Copyrights over Human Rights
Imagine you’re the parent of a sick teenage girl suffering from pancreatitis who’s regularly hospitalized and needs a cell transplant or she faces death. Then, one day, you’re sorting through the medical bills and you come across another bill – except this one isn’t from the hospital, it’s from the RIAA demanding thousands of dollars in fines because they say your daughter illegally downloaded Justin Timberlake’s “Bringing **** Back.”
That’s the heartbreaking story that unfolded with 19 year old Ciara Sauro from Pittsburgh who has been confined to a hospital bed for a large part of her life. At the time they received the lawsuit, her mother Lisa made only $8.25 an hour at work and spent the remainder of her time at the bedside of her daughter helping her fight off the ailment. But now they have to fight off another sickness – the depravity of the RIAA.
The lawsuit calls for a settlement of nearly $8,000 for downloading roughly 10 songs, but Ciara insists the RIAA has no idea what they’re talking about.
“Look and see where [the downloads] came from, and look and see that it’s not me. It’s not fair to do to me,” said Ciara. “I already have severe depression. I mean, it’s so hard to sit there and think that I have to get in trouble for something that I didn’t do. It’s not fair.”
Of course it’s not fair, Ciara – but then again the RIAA isn’t interested in what’s fair. They’re just interested in money.
Better off Dead
In case you were under the impression that you had to be living to receive a lawsuit, think again. It seems that even the dead can’t rest in peace when the RIAA so wishes. This is what happened with 83-year old grandmother Gertrude Walton from Virginia who died months before the lawsuit was filed in 2005 accusing her of illegally sharing up to 700 songs over the internet. However, Gertrude’s daughter Robin says that her mother hated computers and refused to even have one in the house.
Knowing that the lawsuit must be based on false grounds – and because the accused was now deceased – Robin responded to the RIAA’s warning with a letter that included her mother’s death certificate and an explanation that they must be mistaken. But then, a week later, Robin and her deceased mother received the official lawsuit in the mail.
Though eventually an RIAA spokesperson said that they would try to dismiss the case, is there any compensation that they’re being forced to pay for interrupting the grieving process with an outlandish lawsuit? Maybe when hell freezes over, destroying all the RIAA’s demonic attorneys.
Like Stealing Candy from a Baby
They’re never too young for the RIAA. In what has become one of the most notorious lawsuits they have ever pursued, young 12 year old Brianna LaHara found herself at the center of the RIAA’s crosshairs in 2003 after she was accused of downloading over 1,000 copyrighted songs through the filesharing service Kazaa. Though she had downloaded the songs, she had only done so because her parents paid $30 a month to Kazaa for access to their music service – which deceptively didn’t actually give them the right to download music.
And though Brianna’s parents were a poor working class family that lived in a New York tenement, the RIAA originally tried suing them for an astronomical $150,000 per song. Sound a little extreme? Not to the RIAA.
“Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation,” said RIAA president Cary Sherman. “But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action.”
So apparently suing a low-income family for millions of dollars is what Cary Sherman considers “appropriate.” But if that’s so, the next time that guy steps on my shoe, I’ll just throw him into traffic. It’s what I would personally consider “appropriate action.”
Though ultimately the lawsuit was settled for $2,000, it just goes to show the role that strongman intimidation plays in the image of the RIAA.
Don’t Worry… For Now
Though the RIAA is by no means any less evil, starting in 2009 they decided to stop pursuing lawsuits against individuals and have now focused on attacking ISPs. So you can rest easy knowing that at least the plague of individual lawsuits during the dark ages of the RIAA are over, but don’t think you’re in the clear just yet. Piracy has been changing the face of the recording industry for over a decade now and it’s only increasing over time. And though it has now been widely proven that piracy can often be good for artists, especially struggling independent musicians, the RIAA will be undoubtedly cooking up another evil scheme in some dark basement at one of their headquarters to ***** the consumer and prevent progress. But if there’s one lesson we’ve learnt from Rome, it’s that every empire must one day fall. Let’s just hope that day is sometime soon because I hear U2’s new album is coming out soon and I got a torrent with their name on it.
ares vista download
Share this Post[?]Point/Counterpoint Part I: The RIAA is Evil
It has been known for quite some time that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a “monster” in some of the most literal definitions of the word- it is a massive, powerful and hateful organization that preys on the defenseless with unflinching malice. Since 2003, they have filed over 35,000 lawsuits against any and every kind of person while being backed up by a force of thousands of formidable lawyers. And while some of these cases might have had legal ground to stand on, others have just been downright despicable. Whether it’s suing children or the deceased, the RIAA has proven that there are no depths too low for them to sink to.
So to give you an idea as to just how villainous they really are, we’ve compiled a list of the RIAA’s most outrageous and offensive lawsuits.
Laser Printer Pirate
If you thought that you had to be a human being to fall under the radar of the RIAA, guess again. Though technically not a lawsuit, the following case has become known as one of the funniest examples of the RIAA’s stupidity. In August 2007, 13 takedown notices were sent to the University of Washington demanding them to stop pirating music. However, what makes this story so ridiculous is that several of the machines accused of pirating music were actually laser printers connected to the school’s network. Now, I’m not sure how a laser printer would be able to download music but I’m assuming that it involves printing out the lyrics or something equally absurd- or it’s just a great example of the RIAA’s incompetence.
But despite the humorous nature of the story, the University of Washington wanted to prove that this is no laughing matter and published a report about the takedown notices to emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
“Our results show that potentially any Internet user is at risk for receiving [takedown notices] today. Whether a false positive sent to a user that has never even used BitTorrent or a truly infringing user that relies on incomplete IP blacklists, there is currently no way for anyone to wholly avoid the risk of complaints.”
No Computer, No Problem for the RIAA
To illustrate the point made in the University of Washington paper about nobody being safe from the RIAA – including those who have never even used Bittorrent – the next case involves a woman who has never even used a computer. Marie Lindor from Brooklyn, New York opened her mailbox one day probably expecting her normal flood of coupons and letters from grandchildren, but instead found a greeting card from the RIAA inviting her to either join them in the courtroom or pay a $4500 “No thank you” fee, otherwise known as a “settlement.”
So you might want to think that the RIAA dismissed the case after she patiently explained to them that she’s never used a computer, has no idea what a Bittorrent is and hasn’t heard of pirating outside of childhood stories about Blackbeard. But that’s not what happened – the RIAA has “principles.” Instead, they ignored the facts and pointed out that she had an unsecure wireless modem set up in her apartment from a few years back when her son had briefly set up a computer there for personal use. However, the dates the RIAA provided of when the pirating took place wasn’t even during that brief time period, so even this doesn’t explain anything.
In all likelihood, someone from another apartment connected without permission to her wireless modem and pirated music – since the modem was not password protected – and now she has to pay for it. Just one more lesson learnt about the dangers of both unencrypted wireless networks and evil soulless organizations like the RIAA.
Copyrights over Human Rights
Imagine you’re the parent of a sick teenage girl suffering from pancreatitis who’s regularly hospitalized and needs a cell transplant or she faces death. Then, one day, you’re sorting through the medical bills and you come across another bill – except this one isn’t from the hospital, it’s from the RIAA demanding thousands of dollars in fines because they say your daughter illegally downloaded Justin Timberlake’s “Bringing **** Back.”
That’s the heartbreaking story that unfolded with 19 year old Ciara Sauro from Pittsburgh who has been confined to a hospital bed for a large part of her life. At the time they received the lawsuit, her mother Lisa made only $8.25 an hour at work and spent the remainder of her time at the bedside of her daughter helping her fight off the ailment. But now they have to fight off another sickness – the depravity of the RIAA.
The lawsuit calls for a settlement of nearly $8,000 for downloading roughly 10 songs, but Ciara insists the RIAA has no idea what they’re talking about.
“Look and see where [the downloads] came from, and look and see that it’s not me. It’s not fair to do to me,” said Ciara. “I already have severe depression. I mean, it’s so hard to sit there and think that I have to get in trouble for something that I didn’t do. It’s not fair.”
Of course it’s not fair, Ciara – but then again the RIAA isn’t interested in what’s fair. They’re just interested in money.
Better off Dead
In case you were under the impression that you had to be living to receive a lawsuit, think again. It seems that even the dead can’t rest in peace when the RIAA so wishes. This is what happened with 83-year old grandmother Gertrude Walton from Virginia who died months before the lawsuit was filed in 2005 accusing her of illegally sharing up to 700 songs over the internet. However, Gertrude’s daughter Robin says that her mother hated computers and refused to even have one in the house.
Knowing that the lawsuit must be based on false grounds – and because the accused was now deceased – Robin responded to the RIAA’s warning with a letter that included her mother’s death certificate and an explanation that they must be mistaken. But then, a week later, Robin and her deceased mother received the official lawsuit in the mail.
Though eventually an RIAA spokesperson said that they would try to dismiss the case, is there any compensation that they’re being forced to pay for interrupting the grieving process with an outlandish lawsuit? Maybe when hell freezes over, destroying all the RIAA’s demonic attorneys.
Like Stealing Candy from a Baby
They’re never too young for the RIAA. In what has become one of the most notorious lawsuits they have ever pursued, young 12 year old Brianna LaHara found herself at the center of the RIAA’s crosshairs in 2003 after she was accused of downloading over 1,000 copyrighted songs through the filesharing service Kazaa. Though she had downloaded the songs, she had only done so because her parents paid $30 a month to Kazaa for access to their music service – which deceptively didn’t actually give them the right to download music.
And though Brianna’s parents were a poor working class family that lived in a New York tenement, the RIAA originally tried suing them for an astronomical $150,000 per song. Sound a little extreme? Not to the RIAA.
“Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation,” said RIAA president Cary Sherman. “But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action.”
So apparently suing a low-income family for millions of dollars is what Cary Sherman considers “appropriate.” But if that’s so, the next time that guy steps on my shoe, I’ll just throw him into traffic. It’s what I would personally consider “appropriate action.”
Though ultimately the lawsuit was settled for $2,000, it just goes to show the role that strongman intimidation plays in the image of the RIAA.
Don’t Worry… For Now
Though the RIAA is by no means any less evil, starting in 2009 they decided to stop pursuing lawsuits against individuals and have now focused on attacking ISPs. So you can rest easy knowing that at least the plague of individual lawsuits during the dark ages of the RIAA are over, but don’t think you’re in the clear just yet. Piracy has been changing the face of the recording industry for over a decade now and it’s only increasing over time. And though it has now been widely proven that piracy can often be good for artists, especially struggling independent musicians, the RIAA will be undoubtedly cooking up another evil scheme in some dark basement at one of their headquarters to ***** the consumer and prevent progress. But if there’s one lesson we’ve learnt from Rome, it’s that every empire must one day fall. Let’s just hope that day is sometime soon because I hear U2’s new album is coming out soon and I got a torrent with their name on it.
ares vista download
