True RIAA ‘settlement’ stats revealed
p2pnet news view RIAA | P2P:- It’s standard RIAA rhetoric to imply many thousands of people across America have been successfully ‘prosecuted’ for the non-crime of file sharing.
In fact, only Jammie Thomas-Rasset has ever appeared before a jury, and her case was a farce from beginning to end.
She was accused of stealing something which was never stolen, lying to protect her family, and in effect depriving the multi-billion-dollar corporate record labels of $1.92 million by sharing 24 copyrighted songs online.
How was the number arrived at? A jury of 12 good people, and true, somehow arrived at the incredible conclusion each of the songs in dispute was worth $80,000, and that Jammie was liable for them.
Now Jammie will become the RIAA poster child of what can happen to people who refuse to toe the corporate line.
But the threat isn’t even smoke-and-mirrors. It doesn’t exist.
The truth is emerging
The chances of any one person becoming a victim of the RIAA, or any of the other corporate music extortion units around the world, is so tiny as to be nonexistent.
But by dint of a massively expensive, and ongoing, mainstream media misinformation blitz, Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US) have been able to create a climate of terror under which people believe they’re a hairs-breadth away from being hauled into court if they dare to share music online.
The labels have have used the issuance of subpoenas to imply some 40,000 or so Americans, including children, have been successfully sued as copyright infringers, and that the vast bulk of them have agreed to ‘settle’ out-of-court for sums usually starting at around $3,000 per person, and rising if they resist.
Now, however, the truth is emerging. Thanks to another RIAA victim, Tanya Andersen.
During the course of the entire RIAA, six-year sue ‘em all campaign, only 18,000 were ‘contacted,’ and fewer than a quarter actually ‘settled, ‘ says Recording Industry vs The People.
Half of those were American students, frightened into paying up thanks, largely, to the fact college staff acted as willing copyright enforcers.
And of the 18,000, less than half — 7,000 — resulted in a lawsuit.
But the RIAA has only managed to get a single case — that of Jammie Thomas-Rasset — into a court-room, and even that resulted in a mistrial. The latest effort is a re-play which, with the incredible jury decision in the background, isnt over yet.
RIAA extortion
Providing the data revealing the true RIAA numbers is Matthew Oppenheim in Andersen v Atlantic Recording, in opposition to Tanya Andersen’s motion for class action certification, says RIvTP.
Only 18,000? And only 4,000 have given in to RIAA extortion?
Ex-RIAA legal hack Matt ‘The Dentist’ Oppenheim has been largely responsible for leading the RIAA attacks against Big 4 customers, even though he no longer works for the unit.
Oregon mother Tanya Andersen, and her lawyer, Lory Lybeck, have been single-mindedly seeking class action status against the corporate music industry, their RIAA, and disgraced RIAA ‘investigator’ MediaSentry.
“She fought Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG`s RIAA to a standstill, forcing it to drop its spurious file sharing case against her, and now an Oregon court has awarded her close to $108,000 in fees and costs,” said p2pnet slightly more than a year ago.
The amount, the highest ever, also signals what is in effect a default victory for other lawyers representing RIAA victims.
Tanya won her case fairly and squarely, but the RIAA through the likes Oppenheim are still attacking her.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
worth $80,000 - Jamie Thomas-Rasset`s $1.92 million playlist, June 19, 2009
Recording Industry vs The People – Oppenheim claims RIAA has pursued total of 18,000 defendants, of whom 4,000 settled, , June 28, 2009
p2pnet – Tanya Andersen awarded $108,000, May 18, 2008
Matt ‘The Dentist’ Oppenheim – Matt `The Dentist` in Jammie v RIAA case, June 11, 2009
RIAA ‘investigator’ MediaSentry – MediaSentry and RIAA: government probe?, April 5, 2009
still attacking her – RIAA: still harassing Tanya Andersen, February 13, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:24 am
This may also be an RIAA lie .. there are so many it’s hard to tell.
This is because of Tanya’s attempt to file a class action suit against the RIAA.
There has to be a certain number of victimized parties in order to become a ‘class’ for a Class Action suit.
RIAA is using it’s usual ‘out of the ass’ math to make sure that there aren’t enough victims to achieve
class action status. Just like with their accounting practices they create whatever number they need,
depending on who they are trying to convince.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:47 am
On another p2pnet story, related to the Jammie Thomas absurd award, the subject of INDISPENSABLE PARTY was raised. This was said:
—–
Then the is the concept of beneficial owners.
When an artists or songwriters gives up ownership of their work in exchange of royalties they become beneficial owners of the work.
American copyright laws recognizes the right of beneficial owners to sue when their work is infringed.
See section §501. Infringement of copyright:
“The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411 [17 USC 411], to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it”.
So, even if an artist or a songwriter gave away the legal ownership, as beneficial owners they may have a right to be compensated by infringes of their work. As such they may have been indispensable parties in the Thomas lawsuit and without them in the lawsuit there can be no damages. The concept protects Thomas from a new lawsuit from the beneficial owners.
—–
Being a beneficial owners anyone who gave up legal ownership of a copyright (of song or recording) in exchange of royalty payments,
the question here are:
a. Were the song beneficial owners represented by RIAA when settlement offers were made to the alleged infringers?
b. Were the people who settled advised that RIAA did not represent the beneficial owners and that because of that the alleged infringers could be sued later on anyway by the songwriters/owners or the beneficial owners?
b. Did RIAA share the settlement payment with the songwriters/owners or the beneficial owners?
If any answer is no, the settlements may constitute fraud or deceit.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
What the RIAA did to Tanya A was far worse than the almost non existent damage Jammie T did to the RIAA.
How can the RIAA give a person threats, sleepless nights, mental anguish, threaten the child, on and on and only have to pay out basically Tanya’s Lawyers fees?
Yet a guilty person caught sharing 24 files gets slapped with almost 2 mil.
So stalking, threatening, false accusations and turning someones life upside down is legal now?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I would love for the RIAA to be tried by Jury in Tanya’s case. If the Jurys are stupid enough to award 2 mil to the RIAA, then surely the Jury would award Tanya 20 million.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“The chances of any one person becoming a victim of the RIAA, or any of the other corporate music extortion units around the world, is so tiny as to be nonexistent.”
Not the RIAA, but same principle;
My friend’s neighbor had never used BitTorrent. His son showed him how to download torrents from The Pirate Bay. He downloaded one movie, Slumdog Millionare and ended up getting a copyright infringement notice from his ISP. It scared him enough that he called the contact number, apologized profusely, practically begged not to be sued, promised he’d never do it again and then deleted both the BT client and the movie. He said he didn’t even watch it. I keep telling him that I can show him how to download safely (Rapidshare & Usenet), but he either never has any free time, or he’s making excuses, probably because he doesn’t believe that they’re actually safe. I’d say that the warning letter put a good scare into him.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“Now Jammie will become the RIAA poster child of what can happen to people who refuse to toe the corporate line”
Now it is up to us to demonstrate to these music parasites what can hapen if they bother the wrong guy.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
@RW
“Now it is up to use to demonstrate to these music parasites what can happen if they bother the wrong guy.”
How would you propose we do that? Other than try to supply counterintelligence against the “intelligence” brought forth by **AA groups, how do we show they are messing with the wrong crowd?
June 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
” How would you propose we do that? Other than try to supply counterintelligence against the âintelligenceâ brought forth by **AA groups, how do we show they are messing with the wrong crowd? ”
Just let that one go Robert.
There is a regular here that always hints at committing violent acts against the RIAA
folks. I think he is either a little off in the head, or deliberately trying to get the site shut
down for advocating violence ( P2Pnet has NEVER advocated violence of any kind ).
I don’t put anything past the RIAA
June 29th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
What a pack of liars!
Before they were lying up. Now they are lying down since they are trying to limit the damage for the comming class action law suits.
This is what our internal intelligence is telling us. (needless to say that we are not going to diclose our sources at this point)
These are the real numbers:
They tried to intimidate about 35,000 up to now not 18000 as they are claiming now and not 50000 as they were claiming before.
About 7000 only settled and not “most of them” (sic) as they were claiming before and not 4000 as they are claiming now.
(All those people: please come forward for the class action law suits as you may be able to get your money back with interest.)
The remainers told them to fuck themselves or simply ignored them with no consequence.
Among those who told them to fuck themsleves and adopted a tuff posture not one where bothered further!
Not surprinsing since like any bullies these parasites are just a bunch of coward.
Moreover someone perforned some retaliatory operations who were not advertised nor prosecuted since the perpetrators remain unknow and in order to prevent a copy cat effect.
So you know what to do if they still bother you!
Cheer!
June 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“There has to be a certain number of victimized parties in order to become a âclassâ for a Class Action suit.”
With all the previous declarations they made before the RIAA should be totally screwed!
June 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“There is a regular here that always hints at committing violent acts against the RIAA
folks. I think he is either a little off in the head, or deliberately trying to get the site shut
down for advocating violence ( P2Pnet has NEVER advocated violence of any kind ).”
Why do you think this about violence?
June 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Sorry!
Why do you think this is about violence?
June 30th, 2009 at 3:27 am
I was chatting to a friend online about music. She always turns me onto good bands. I told her that I was checking to see if the latest reccomended artist was signed to an RIAA affiliated label. She asked me what the RIAA was, so I got a chance to explain it to her. Even though she never hear of the RIAA, she did talk about how crappy radio “music” is. By the time I was finished explaining how the RIAA likes to bully small children, handicapped single mothers, and those with few resources to fight back with, she was in complete agreement.
I told her that no matter how much I love a band or artists, I will NEVER buy a single thing from them if even a single cent goes to the labels. I think she was appalled at the bullying the RIAA has been involved with. I will continue to speak out until the RIAA and corresponding labels are put out of business.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:50 am
âThere is a regular here that always hints at committing violent acts against the RIAA
folks. I think he is either a little off in the head, or deliberately trying to get the site shut
down for advocating violence ( P2Pnet has NEVER advocated violence of any kind ).â
Why do you think this about violence?
I think the RIAA needs to feel what it is like to be intimidated. They committ violence against their victims and ruin lives with their extortion tactics. The only difference is the weapon they use (money). I don’t like bullies, whether they are school yard bullies, public officials, or some mealy mouthed attorney. If one cannot afford the cash to fight it out in court, then I don’t see where it is wrong to pick another battle field where the chances of winning or breaking even are much better. People should look up “Marvin Heemeyer” or killdozier. Now I would not feel a bit badly if someone built something like this and demolished the extortion center. In fact, I think it would be justice served.