It’s becoming such a bore to hear about the RIAA, and lawsuits. You can’t open up a tech news website without seeing a new case that the RIAA has deemed important to bring upon an alleged pirate. These cases tend to not last long, and the defendants pay out a low settlement. Generally in the low thousands range. The ‘RIAA Watch’ has taken an interesting turn, as a lone North Carolina woman is taking the fight back to the RIAA. Her name is Shahanda Moursy, and is the plantiff in a counterclaim suit against the RIAA. Along with the organization, Moursy is suing Sony BMG, UMG Recordings, and Electra Entertainment Group.

Her attorneys cite many different reasons for the countersuit, but two of them really stood out to me. If you wish to read the entire suit, here’s the PDF.

“The “Digital Theft Deterrence … Act of 1999” is unconstitutional because it is essentially a criminal statute, punitively deterrent in its every substantive aspect, from which it follows that: a defendant prosecuted pursuant to this act is entitled to the process protections of the criminal law, including the rules and constitutional law of criminal procedure and the right to trial by jury empowered to act by general verdict; Congress has exceeded its power by placing the executive function of prosecuting an essentially criminal statute in private hands; and, Congress has violated constitutional separation of powers by requiring the judicial branch to try cases pursuant to their essentially criminal mandate by inappropriate civil process.”

It’s interesting to see that we have a piece of legislation granting private organizations procedures which are generally given to criminal cases. Here’s another interesting inclusion…

“The statutory damages Plaintiffs seek are unconstitutional because they violate Defendant’s right to Due Process granted under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages which, at a minimum, are $750 per song. The total cost of licensing the songs would have been approximately $0.99 per song and the total revenue to Plaintiffs from the songs, upon information and belief, would have been approximately $0.77 per song. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages that are, at a minimum, more than nine hundred and seventy four (974) times the amount of their actual damages.”

That’s quite a profit, making $750 off of something that generally costs $0.99. That’s just the minimum. The real tragedy is that these kinds of fines aren’t being brought against the wealthy, but generally people who are struggling financially. They are being made to pay 974 x the cost of a product. Justice indeed.

This will be one case to keep an eye on. Right now, the RIAA is trying to get the case thrown out. If you wish to read their claim, you can read the PDF, here. Hopefully, David will win against Goliath again.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!