I mentioned the other day that I, and others, thought this day was coming. I think that it is long overdue. It seems the RIAA must now defend itself in a class action suit.

I got news of via this article over at Slashdot. If you have not been following this case you can catch up on it at this article (which was mentioned in the Slashdot article). If you really want to seriously read on this topic, you can look over all the online documents here. If you are interested in this topic, to bookmark and/or subscribe to Recording Industry vs. The People. In my opinion, it is the best one stop web resource for the topic of the RIAA and the lawsuit campaign.

I am not 100 percent certain but I think this was my first rant on the RIAA. Exios and I over at Radiostatic.am have also had many a dialog on this topic over the years. I am also old enough to remember when they tried to make blank audio cassettes illegal. In my opinion, this news is potentially best news for the consumer in the time I have been following it. I thought I might hit on a three of the reasons why I think this is so.

First and foremost, this may help to curb the massive number of "sham" lawsuits or "spamigation" filed against individuals. According to Wikipedia, they have settled about 2500 cases. AThis report (PDF File) by the Electronic Frontier Foundation published in August 2007, states over 20,000 individuals have been involved and they are targeting 400 college students per month. There is much debate over what the actual numbers are.

Is think the logic is that the RIAA knows that the average college student can not afford legal resources for a defense but, because they can afford college, they can afford the average 3-5 thousand dollar settlement? The college niche they are targeting is also the market they target with their advertisements as well. One of the major focuses of the organization is to sue one of the markets they target for sales? I hope and pray this ends before they start going after the retirement funds of the elderly.

I might be being a bit harsh on my previous point and, to remain fair, I should point out that nobody is immune from. Tanya Andersen is not the only single mom involved in this PC to PC witch hunt. Heck, they have even sued the dead, people who do not have internet or a PC and, if suing you fails, they just move on to your children. Also, I could not find not find any incidents of them sueing the family pet, perhaps they are fearful of PETA.

The RIAA has already admitted in public statement that they will catch a "dolphin" when using a "driftnet". In other words, they admit they hit a few innocents in there gathering process. What is lacking is any kind of statement as to how many are actually guilty. The RIAA does not attempt to actually go to trial. They have even used "settlement centers"e;.

The second possible good thing that may come out of this process is that the very method of how the RIAA obtains these names may be ceased. The RIAA is, more or less, checking every PC they can. Also under question is the standing of the investigative company hired by the RIAA. It is alleged that the company was not licensed in Oregon and other states.

I have two real issues with the methodology of the RIAA in gathering such name. The largest being is that they are NOT a law enforcement agency. They are, in fact, and association representing the four major labels and many smaller ones. They claim control 90% of the music released in the USA. I have had many a conversation on IRC, VOIP, the phone, and at local restaurants on this topic. To date, no one has given me any reason why this should not fall under RICO laws. They are in effect, sharing legal resources and legal information.

The second issue is one of my rights as an American Citizen. Assume for a moment that we take the RIAA and deputize them. Also assume we know of a certain neighborhood which is overrun with crime and drugs. Would our now deputized organization have the right to go into the neighborhood and search each dwelling? How is this any different that drift netting? In my mind, the method would be legally questionable even if they were law enforcement agents.

The final thing is that the RIAA and their associates will have to do much explaining regarding all of the above. They are going to have to explain how much of this goes to the artist, how much goes to the attorneys, why they have dismissed cases admitting the case had no merit and continued to use the same methods to create more cases, and how much is going to other things.

I really have to watch this one in reference to how much goes to the artist and songwriter. They can specifically reference the artists and songwriters that were robbed of royalties. Can they document how much of the infringement collections were forwarded to them? If they are the "Copyright Crusaders", as they claim to be, would that not be producing such documentation be the most expedient route to vindication?

They spent $650,000 in lobbying in the first half of 2007 alone. At the same time, they want to reduce the royalties to songwriters? I can’t find any information on royalties paid to artists and songwriters vs. amount collected. As great as these guys are at math, watching this unfold is going to be as funny as this Weird Al Video.

Thanks for reading and let us all see what the next RIAA trick is.