A new report has surfaced that says that the racketeering lawsuit against the RIAA has been amended.The lawsuit is said to have been filed on behalf of thousands of people falsely litigated for violating copyright law over the internet via file-sharing networks. The lawsuit (PDF - hosted by Wired) says, "The world’s four major recording studios had devised an illegal enterprise intent on maintaining their virtually complete monopoly over the distribution of recorded music. The enterprise is conducted with total disregard for innocent individuals. Dead people have been sued. Children have been sued. People without computers have been sued." The lawsuit additionally questions the evidence gathering techniques of Media Sentry, an anti-piracy company that works for the RIAA. The lawsuit says that the private practices by the company isn't licensed and, therefore, not even legal. This is just one of many complaints being brought forth to the courts against the RIAA. Over the years, the Recording Industry Association of American has been heavily criticized over sending lawsuits to tens of thousands of people and pressuring them to settle out of court. As reported earlier, the RIAA is is currently trying to prove that a file with a copyrighted title in a shared directory constitutes copyright infringement. Lawsuits, or what is more well known recently, pre-litigation lawsuit letters, have been filed against college students. Many users suggest that the only reason for the switch in tactics was because average American citizens started to fight back, making the RIAA fearful of losing a case and setting a precedent the RIAA does not favor. The RIAA has claimed for years that they file lawsuits on behalf of artists because of alleged lost revenues over unauthorized downloading. The claim was brought under serious question when the artists managers started demanding a share of the money the organization was taking in from settlements. While the revived lawsuit may be good news for many, David Kravets of Wired cautions that there has yet to be a ruling saying the case can proceed. Further reading: Threat Level. |
|
members that voted for this story
|
