News

RIAA Tries to Extend Its Reach In Lawsuits

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is working to extend its reach in cases against consumers the group accuses of stealing music. In UMG v Lindor, the group is now trying to subpoena the computer of a family member that isn't living in the same house, according to the Recording Industry vs The People blog.

In this case, UMG Recordings alleges that Marie Lindor used an online distribution system to download and distribute music files. Ironically, she has never owned or used a computer. Now the RIAA has issued a subpoena for her adult son's computer - he lives several miles away from her.

The subpoena orders Ms. Linor's son, Woody Raymond, to produce "any and all computers and/or music listening devices including iPods and MP3 players in your possession, custody or control." By coincidence, Mr. Raymond is a paralegal, which means computers in his control contain confidential client and case information.

Mr. Raymond's attorney, Richard Altman, said in a letter to the court that his only involvement in the case is that he is the defendant's son, and that the RIAA is conducting a "fishing expedition."

Consumer rights groups and organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have been accusing the RIAA of trying to intimidate consumers into draconian licensing terms by strong-arming people that aren't able to defend themselves against the organization. The group has also been trying from some time to prevent consumers from having control over the music they purchase or listen to, and has even gone so far as to suggest that copying a music CD you own to an iPod is not "fair use."

The UMB v Lindor case is likely to go on for some time, so for now we'll have to wait and see how far the courts let the RIAA go in pursuit of alleged music thiefs.

8 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

A guest said: (hide)

They've gone to far already many times over. Including going after dead people. The courts have got to put a cap on this non-sense!

Quote this post ↓

Edison Carter said:

member since 10 Aug 2006 with 228 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Guest wrote:
They've gone to far already many times over. Including going after dead people. The courts have got to put a cap on this non-sense!

Juries could put a stop to it as well.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Edison Carter wrote:
Guest wrote:
They've gone to far already many times over. Including going after dead people. The courts have got to put a cap on this non-sense!

Juries could put a stop to it as well.

Yes. Too often, though, judges instruct the juries that they are not to judge the law, which is a bunch of hooey.

Quote this post ↓

LaurieF said:

member since 15 Jun 2001 with 3545 posts, TMO Forum Mod, send him a message or view his profile

I disagree. IANAL, and I'm not that familiar with the US justice system (Boston Legal notwithstanding), but I'm fairly sure that were juries to be able to "judge the law", they would effectively have the authority to change the law.

Surely it's the judge who ia there to decide on legal interpretations of statutes, and to direct the jury on those statutes. The jury can't then say, "Oh, the law is stupid. This is how it ought to be."

Quote this post ↓

Jonkun227 said:

member since 02 Mar 2004 with 238 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

I'm not familiar with the RIAA cases, so please educate me: Are these criminal or civil suits? The name seems to indicate tht it's a civil suit. I ask because juries are rarely involved in civil suits.

- Jon

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Jonkun227 wrote:
I'm not familiar with the RIAA cases, so please educate me: Are these criminal or civil suits? The name seems to indicate tht it's a civil suit. I ask because juries are rarely involved in civil suits.

- Jon

They're civil suits. Most never go to trial, so juries (and judges) are irrelevant. Defending oneself in such a suit could easily cost $10,000, so it could be easier to give up and settle.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Guest wrote:
Edison Carter wrote:
Guest wrote:
They've gone to far already many times over. Including going after dead people. The courts have got to put a cap on this non-sense!

Juries could put a stop to it as well.

Yes. Too often, though, judges instruct the juries that they are not to judge the law, which is a bunch of hooey.

The American legal system (and for that matter, all civil law systems) is based on the premise the juries are the trier of fact. The role of the judge is to ensure that the jury understands the laws against which those facts are tried. It has never been the role of the jury to interpret the law, and all the time, juries are faced with applying facts to unpaletable laws.

Juries don't make law - nor to trial laws judges, and in 99.9999% of the time, appellate court judges don't make law either. Your elected officials are supposed to make laws, and if you don't like a law, then write to them. They are, after all, your [bold]lawmakers[/bold]

Quote this post ↓

geoduck said:

member since 30 Dec 2003 with 1917 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Guest wrote:
They are, after all, your [bold]lawmakers[/bold]

Or as the case is in reality "your" lawmakers.

The elected officials respond to whomever gives them the $$ to get reelected. Let's see my $50 or the recording companies huge contributions. Hmmm...who do you think "my" elected officials are really going to be working for. Who do you think the laws will be skewed to benefit. Where do you think my letter of complaint will end up (hint, it's steel, round, and sets on the floor).

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.