Inspired by this story on Wired: Millionaire takes on RIAA. Basically, the RIAA is continuing its program of suing people they suspect are illegally downloading content they own. This time, however, they may have bitten off more than they can chew.
The standard wisdom is that the RIAA doesn’t actually want the cases to go to court- that they will delay the trials and use other methods to run their victims out of money, to force them to settle. These settlements start at $2500, but if the case proceeds, they escalate the amount up to $10,000 or more. Most people accused by the RIAA don’t have the money to defend themselves against a theoretically unending court battle, and instead settle.
Very few cases have actually gone to court- most settle, even those who are clearly innocent (such as the grandmother who supposedly downloaded hardcore rap). In the cases where it looked like a case was going to go to court, the RIAA has quietly settled.
DirectTV did much the same thing, a couple of years back- they raided online stores which sold satellite piracy equipment, got their customer lists, and then threatened to sue everyone on those lists… even those people who had a legitimate reason to buy that equipment, and who simply used those sites because they were the cheapest source of the (perfectly legal) equipment. DirectTV, like the RIAA, allowed a vanishingly small amount of the cases to go to court- most people settled. In most of the cases which actually made it to court, DirectTV settled… but with a seal on the case prohibiting their opponents from discussing the case.
Simple math shows that this is theoretically a very lucrative business- if you’ve got more money than the person you’re suing, you have a good chance of running them out of money and forcing them to settle. Multiply that by several thousand, and you’ve got a hefty profit.
My question is- isn’t this effectively extortion against those who can’t afford to defend themselves? What can be done about it?
There are elements of the system that could be used to curtail such abuse. For instance, there have been cases where somebody has been enjoined against filing more lawsuits after a judge decides that the 753rd “I want eleven jillion dollars in damages from Dubya, the CIA, and the Pope for beaming mind control rays at my apartment” filing is quite enough – presumably, the same laws apply to corporate persons, and can be invoked against them if only there is the will to do so.
Would be nice to see a cite that this has ever been used against anybody like the RIAA. Also, I’m not sure you’re talking apples and oranges here. An individual may have dubious motives for suing a lot of people, but surely a corporation can reasonably claim that many people are ripping it off if its products, etc., are widely distributed.
I do agree, it’s legalized blackmail. But the law is basically skewed toward the wealthy, and the only defense I’ve seen any conservative mount that makes any kind of sense is that it’s mildly less oppressive than letting corporations run roughshot over everyone.
[paraphrase]“The law, in it’s majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread and from sleeping under bridges.”[/paraphrase]
-and I’ve forgotten the source as well - but not the idea
There’s a flipside, of course. When non-famous people get nailed for driving drunk or boffing the 17-year-old au pair, there are consequences… but it doesn’t generally turn up on the Drudge Report.
Celebrities are vulnerable to charges that would otherwise be dismissed outright, or quietly settled with a fine, but are pursued largely because the defendants are famous and the local DA wants to “send a message.” (Hugh Grant, George Michael, Jenna Bush, etc.)
Not celebrities, but the wealthy. There have been great efforts trying to find a rich oerson executed for murder. There are a few. Executions are increasing with this admin. The poor are not able to defend themselves in court. OJ is an example.A poor prsom would have lost. We have the best government and legal sysyem that a lot of money an buy.
DNA evidence is completely damning to a poor person. The wealthy are able to beat it.They are able to question the lab techs, the police crime scene invesigators, and follow it through the system looking for errors. They can invesigate the investigators and cause doubt. They are able to do what you cannot.
Yes. Over the last few generations, our legal system has shifted from some rough approximation of “equal protection under the law” to a system where your rights depend on the quality of legal representation that you can afford.
Not much. The Pubs certainly aren’t going to address this issue, and the Dems are too cowardly to bring it up in public since they know the media will immediately accuse them of “class warfare”. Absent a political solution, one thing that might help is a non-profit organization of a few dozen lawyers who are willing to take up these cases at low cost. If they assisted enough people in fighting back, the logic of the RIAA’s financial balance might change.
Realistically, though, this sort of abuse will continue until our country shifts philosophically back to the central idea of the Declaration of Independence: that everybody is equal, and that it’s the government’s job to ensure they’re treated equally.
I must admit, I didn’t expect this thread to be so… quiet. I was really hoping we’d get some of our board lawyers in on it, like Bricker.
Is it just that everyone expects the law to work this way, and that there’s nothing we can do about it? Is it a bad thing at all?
My opinion:
It’s a bad thing. The only way I see to stop it, to make the law equal for everyone, is to make the law more accessible to the non-lawyers, so that acting as your own lawyer is a valid defense. However, this would only make it cheaper to defend yourself, so the “extortion” element would still apply (just not as much as it does now).
In this specific case, I think that the MPAA should be prevented from using the shotgun lawsuit method. I think that it’s fairly obvious that they have no intention of allowing the majority of their cases to actually go to trial- and, as such, shouldn’t be allowed to use this method for redress.
C’mon, if there was ever any doubt about the laws’ being a tool of the rich, surely the mere existence of SLAPP suits would be definitive proof otherwise.
My brother was in a class in undergrad where someone was guest speaking about their job, and how they were occasionally called upon to be an expert witness and what they charged for doing so. A student asked that since only wealthy defendants or litigants could afford to hire him, didn’t that mean the law favored the rich? The speaker responded “Everything favors the rich.”
He’s right. The law does favor the rich to a certain degree, but that’s not so much because the law is corrupt as it is an inescapable fact of life. Rich people also get better health care, better seats at restaurants, drive better cars, and date better looking strippers. We do a good deal to strive for a goal of equal justice under the law; we require attorneys to do a certain amount of work pro bono, we make sure that the indigent get legal representation, and we try to level the playing field as much as possible, but if Bill Gates wants to sue you, he can probably afford a few more billable hours than you can.
We make sure the indigent get legal representation in CRIMINAL cases. No court is going to appoint a lawyer for you if you get sued on a civil matter, like copyright infringement a-la the RIAA/MPAA suits. There is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement, but the circumstances under which it can be considered a criminal case are much more stringent than downloading something from a peer to peer network. Most of the “big guy sticking it to the little guy” suits are civil suits. There is no mandated representation there.
True enough, although the indigent do tend to be judgment proof and not worth suing. I actually do see some of what you describe in my practice, most recently with old credit card debts being sued upon by the thousands, regardless of whether or not they’re barred by the statute of limitations or the plaintiff can actually prove the amount or the four or five assignments of the account. They sue in mass quantities and 99% of the defendants either don’t bother looking for an attorney or hiring a lawyer would end up costing almost the amount being sued for, so they end up with a default judgment against them for whatever amount the plaintiff claims. I make it a point to take these cases even though they’re a huge pain in the ass.
If you were Bill Gates and had 10 % of your wealth stolen, you bet your ass that the law would spend millions for his justice. But if you are a 12 year old boy whose only possession is a new bicycle like I remember…