Woman Sues The RIAA

[Admiral Valdemar]

Morris mom turns tables in music industry lawsuit



Wednesday, February 18, 2004


BY KEVIN COUGHLIN
Star-Ledger Staff

The music industry considers Michele Scimeca a pirate. The Morris County mom has her own term for record executives:

Racketeers.


In what legal experts described as a novel strategy, Scimeca is citing federal racketeering laws like the one that jailed mob boss John Gotti to countersue record labels that accused her in December of sharing some 1,400 copyrighted songs over the Internet.

The Rockaway Township woman, who claims she was targeted for her teenager's school research project, is among hundreds of individuals sued by the music industry since last summer. Another 531 computer users were sued yesterday in "John Doe" suits filed in Trenton, Atlanta, Philadelphia and Orlando.

Labels are using "scare tactics (that) amount to extortion" in efforts to extract settlements, Scimeca alleges in legal papers sent to the U.S. District Court in Newark.

"They're banding together to extort money, telling people they're guilty and they will have to pay big bucks to defend their cases if they don't pony up now. It is fundamentally not fair," Scimeca's lawyer, Bart Lombardo, said yesterday. The Cranford attorney said he occasionally downloads songs for personal use and sees nothing wrong with that.

The counterclaim seeks unspecified damages from Sony Music Entertainment Inc., UMG Recordings Inc. and Motown Record Co. L.P. Their lawyers in Los Angeles referred requests for comment to the Recording Industry Association of America. "We stand by our claims," the RIAA said in a prepared statement.

Scimeca's case appears to be the first use of federal racketeering laws in the music copyright wars, said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet advocacy group. Most defendants are paying music labels $2,000 to $10,000 to avert costly trials, Cohn said.

"It strikes me as a very innovative use of the law. Very innovative," said Gregory Mark, a law professor at the Rutgers School of Law-Newark.

The Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, was enacted in 1970 to prosecute organized crime and help victims seek compensation. But over the years it has been invoked, with varying success, in connection with alleged conspiracies ranging from GOP fund-raising to sexual abuses by Roman Catholic clergy.

AT&T cited the same laws when accusing WorldCom of phone fraud. In a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the National Organization for Women unsuccessfully used RICO against an anti-abortion group.

That case hinged on an interpretation of the Hobbs act, a 1946 law aimed at thwarting gangsters from extorting interstate truckers. Scimeca's case also cites the Hobbs act: Paying the music labels would deprive her of money she could spend on interstate commerce, her lawyer explained. Because the so-called extortion papers were delivered via the postal system, and potentially affect Scimeca's bank account, her countersuit also cites mail- and bank fraud laws.

In December, the labels produced 41 pages of copyrighted songs from Pearl Jam, Korn, Godsmack and other artists, which they said were offered for illegal swapping over the KaZaA network by "DrEeMeR."

Scimeca told The Star-Ledger that was the screen name used by her 13-year-old daughter, a high school freshman, for a school project. But the family's Optimum Online Internet account was registered to the mother, whose name was handed over by Cablevision. An unrelated court ruling recently made such information harder for labels to obtain. So now they are filing John Doe lawsuits based on Internet addresses.

Scimeca said at the time that she and her husband could not afford copyright penalties of up to $150,000 per song. "Ignorance of the law is not a defense," admonished the notice she got from the labels' lawyers, who added that Scimeca's liability was clear and she should consider settling.

Scimeca's case may raise a valid question: Can labels take collective action against file-swappers? But her lawyer must convince U.S. District Court Judge William Martini that it merits a jury trial, said Mark, the Rutgers professor. "The hurdle is getting to a jury," Mark said.

A group in California tried using the RICO law to stop DirecTV from threatening people it suspects of stealing satellite services. But the company successfully argued its letters were protected free speech under a state law, said Jennifer Stisa Granick of Stanford University's Center for Internet & Society.

[Crown]

I wish her the best, but she is too over powered in this ... perhaps a class action might do it, but I doubt it.

Lets look at it this way; the RIAA is a monopoly, and yet is protected by the law.

She has slim chances.

[Sarevok]

Stil it is good to see someone fighting back against RIAA.

[KrauserKrauser]

While I know she will get plowed under by the unstoppable RIAA police, I hope she at least can bloody their nose a bit.

[Solauren]

This might not work, then again, the first shot in a counter attack rarely works.

Rally the masses! We must bring the RIAA to it's knee's!

[Rogue 9]

I, Rogue9, do not need to requote the entire news article for no reason but to waste space. That would be stupid!

Awesome. Where'd you get the article?

[Admiral Valdemar]

From some forum posted on SB.com.

[General Zod]

hopefully this encourages more people to take a stand against the RIAA.

[beyond hope]

That's just one more reason that their strategy of suing their customers is assinine: with several thousand lawsuits out there, people are going to try every different approach they can think of to defend themselves. Sooner or later, someone is going to win.

[Rogue 9]

They really should have gone after the RIAA before even worrying about Microsoft. At least there are actually other computer companies. The RIAA is a true monopoly.

[darthdavid]

And atleast microsoft doesn't threaten and harrass linux, unix and mac vendors and developers.

[Rogue 9]

And atleast microsoft doesn't threaten and harrass linux, unix and mac vendors and developers.

Tell me about it.

[Sarevok]

And atleast microsoft doesn't threaten and harrass linux, unix and mac vendors and developers.

But Microsoft is still a monopoly.

[Rogue 9]

And atleast microsoft doesn't threaten and harrass linux, unix and mac vendors and developers.

But Microsoft is still a monopoly.

But Microsoft has competition, so its not a strict monopoly. The RIAA is a true monopoly, or as close to it as you get.

[Pablo Sanchez]

But Microsoft has competition, so its not a strict monopoly. The RIAA is a true monopoly, or as close to it as you get.

At the point both beasts are at, the definition scarcely matters anymore. Both of them can set their prices where they want them, and they both have--and that's what really matters.

[Rogue 9]

But Microsoft has competition, so its not a strict monopoly. The RIAA is a true monopoly, or as close to it as you get.

At the point both beasts are at, the definition scarcely matters anymore. Both of them can set their prices where they want them, and they both have--and that's what really matters.

But I'd still rather see the RIAA smashed, because I'm a musician who is not going to deal with them, and they shut down competition. So my priorities lie with the RIAA for that reason, in addition to them being a true monopoly. Programmers who want to have independent businesses would likely like to see Microsoft go first, but I don't have that perspective. And legally the RIAA really has more reason to be dealt with anyway.

[Slartibartfast]

Microsoft isn't really a monopoly, the problem is that it tries damn hard to be, and engages in "monopolistic practices". So instead of being an established monopoly that does what it wants, it's just a powerful corp that tries to shut down the competition to Become the lone monopoly.

[Darth Yoshi]

About time someone turned the tables.

[TheDarkling]

People who own the copyright of music/movies/books should not be allowed to sell to the public; anybody should be able to buy distribution rights (for a small fee, in a business sense) and have to give a set % of the sales to the copyright holder.

In this manner nobody can maintain a monopoly (not just in the RIAA manner but in the same way that I can only buy The Matrix from WB or Spiderman from Tristar) in this way the cost of titles would shoot down (as the new distributors compete to sell the most Spiderman’s and thus lower the cost instead of just trying to get me to buy X-Men 2 instead of Spidermanand so not lowing costs).

[General Zod]

People who own the copyright of music/movies/books should not be allowed to sell to the public; anybody should be able to buy distribution rights (for a small fee, in a business sense) and have to give a set % of the sales to the copyright holder.

i'm not quite grasping your logic here. why shouldn't someone who holds the copyright of their own work be allowed to self publish? it's their works, why can't they distribute it themselves? especially if it's an independent author or producer, they may have been rejected by major publishing companies and want to produce their own works independently.

[TheDarkling]

i'm not quite grasping your logic here. why shouldn't someone who holds the copyright of their own work be allowed to self publish? it's their works, why can't they distribute it themselves? especially if it's an independent author or producer, they may have been rejected by major publishing companies and want to produce their own works independently.

I could also just as easily point out that people who inventing technology can only hang onto their work for a very short time why should the product of artists be any different (especially when said artists aren't the ones benefiting because they most often have to sell the rights to a company).

Individuals rarely publish there own works though be it movies, books, music or games (although the internet does allow some very minor people to publish independent version of the latter two, often for free or on a donation scheme), they need somebody to distribute their product for them, if the money was going straight into the hands of the author/production company then I would have less complaints (after all they could afford to sell at a low price and compete with similar products of other authors/producers/etc) as it is a distribution company rakes in the profits and engages in price gouging because they have sole access to the material (a monopoly on the material if you will).

So perhaps I should have said only production companies/original artists should be allowed to sell direct but since the chances of that are remote they will no doubt have to set up a distributor (or more likely sell their product to said distributor) in which case they would be much better served under my scheme (they maintain the work as their own and gain a fee plus a % of every sale) as the free market sets out to maximise those sales (no company is going to price itself so low as to go bankrupt and will try to make as much money as possible, they however will not be able to price gouge because they will have competition, this is a winner for the customer and the artist).

[Hethrir]

But I'd still rather see the RIAA smashed, because I'm a musician who is not going to deal with them, and they shut down competition...

Aye!

[General Zod]

I could also just as easily point out that people who inventing technology can only hang onto their work for a very short time why should the product of artists be any different (especially when said artists aren't the ones benefiting because they most often have to sell the rights to a company).

poor analogy. an artist can resell their works to new publicists after the contract expires with the company they make the agreements with. in publishing an author, for example, can agree to do a deal with a certain company for x number of books for x number of years for x amount of the proceeds. after that the contract is over and they're free to either renew the contract or they can sell the rights to another company if they want to and if that company is interested. on the other hand those that design technology often do so under the direction and employment of a firm, and the firm often automatically controls the patent to the device rather than the individual that designs it.

individuals rarely publish there own works though be it movies, books, music or games (although the internet does allow some very minor people to publish independent version of the latter two, often for free or on a donation scheme), they need somebody to distribute their product for them, if the money was going straight into the hands of the author/production company then I would have less complaints (after all they could afford to sell at a low price and compete with similar products of other authors/producers/etc) as it is a distribution company rakes in the profits and engages in price gouging because they have sole access to the material (a monopoly on the material if you will).

you're right there at least. most individuals don't often have the resources to publish something on their own, however if nobody else wants to handle their works, then they can go to self-publicists and get certain amounts of copies produced for their own distribution. and often times the money doesn't go straight to the hands of the author because the company needs to cover the costs of printing, bindings, manufacturing, distribution, and all the other things associated with publishing books. on top of that they typically only publish books that they believe will sell. and they have to pay for all the other people involved in the process, such as the editor and for the advertisements.

(they maintain the work as their own and gain a fee plus a % of every sale) as the free market sets out to maximise those sales (no company is going to price itself so low as to go bankrupt and will try to make as much money as possible, they however will not be able to price gouge because they will have competition, this is a winner for the customer and the artist).

err, this is sort of how it's done already. as i mentioned above authors often retain the rights to their own works until the contract with their present publishing company expires. some companies might want exclusive rights, others might not. it depends on the various companies in question, and they automatically gain a percentage of every book sold.

[TheDarkling]

poor analogy. an artist can resell their works to new publicists after the contract expires with the company they make the agreements with. in publishing an author, for example, can agree to do a deal with a certain company for x number of books for x number of years for x amount of the proceeds. after that the contract is over and they're free to either renew the contract or they can sell the rights to another company if they want to and if that company is interested. on the other hand those that design technology often do so under the direction and employment of a firm, and the firm often automatically controls the patent to the device rather than the individual that designs it.

You missed my point, if a medical company can invent an important drug and only keep the patent for 15 years or so why should generic book publisher (if they contracted the writer to write for them, as in the case of established franchise i.e. Star Wars) be able to keep the rights to their work for 70 years after the authors death (as it is in Europe at least).

err, this is sort of how it's done already. as i mentioned above authors often retain the rights to their own works until the contract with their present publishing company expires. some companies might want exclusive rights, others might not. it depends on the various companies in question, and they automatically gain a percentage of every book sold.

I was not speaking exclusively about books though (in fact my main argument is about films and to a lesser extent music) however it doesn't always happen that an author seeks a publisher (sometimes as I pointed out above it is the other way around), and as I outlined I don't really have that much of a problem with author direct to sales and why I have explained that I don't really care to alter it in the case you have outlined (which isn't all books and doesn't apply to films/music/and games in some cases). That being said I would still say copyrights have too long a life.

[RedImperator]

You're forgetting that the companies handling the distribution usually pay for its production. The director, musician, or writer actually create the material, but movies, music, and books cost a lot of money to make. There's no way a movie studio, record company, or book publisher pays to produce material that any jerkoff can legally copy and distribute.