Recording Industry vs The People: RIAA's extortion center outed?

Monday, April 07, 2008

RIAA's extortion center outed?

A reader of p2pnet believes he has figured out the identity of the company running the RIAA's extortion -- er, settlement -- company:

RIAA extortion company: identified & located?

p2pnet news | RIAA News:- A long-time p2pnet reader and computer programmer says he’s 99.9% certain he’s unearthed the name of the company that may be running the RIAA’s so called ‘Settlement Center’.

“My information is correct based on his examination of data from several sources,” he states in an email, going on >>>

Hi Jon:

I’ve been doing a little internet research and I believe I’ve located the RIAA’s extortion centers.

It looks to me like they’re run by a company called P S C Group, LLC.

Below is the information documenting why I believe this company is involved:.....

Complete article

Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property

10 comments:

Anonymous said...: Looking at the firm's website, it seems unlikely that these are the folks. They develop computer applications.

http://www.pscgroup.com

Kip Patterson; April 7, 2008 at 12:01:00 PM EDT
Kathleen Williamson said...: I wonder, then, whether this LLC should be added to the class action initiated by Lory Lybeck. It seems that they should be.
Furthermore, Lybeck should be able to get this same information about who this settlement center is through discovery in his case against the RIAA.
Kathleen Williamson; April 7, 2008 at 12:19:00 PM EDT
Scott said...: Hi Kip,

Well, they may or may not be, in my opinion. The phone number is associated with the company. They may just be an application service provider to manage and track the extortion letters. Or, they may also provide the warm bodies to answer the phones.

I'm still hoping that an attorney will pursue the libel angle in the cases (probably most of them) where a defendant is misidentified. Media Sentry could be vulnerable to this kind of attack. If PSC Group did have an active role in communicating the libel, they could also find themselves fending off lawsuits.

Do any libel attorneys read this blog?; April 7, 2008 at 1:07:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: The discovery I'd like to see against the SSC is if they have recordings of all the calls. Find out what they're actually telling callers. I can't believe that everything coming in to them isn't recorded, which could will really hurt them for their misrepresentations (e.g. the evidence to prove your guilt has already been secured).

XK-E; April 7, 2008 at 1:21:00 PM EDT
Travis said...: I have worked in call centers in various positions for almost 10 years now so I just wanted to comment on the recorded calls.

Many call centers monitor sporadicly and the probability of any individual call being monitored is very low. There is a significant cost investment to be able to monitor and then store every single call that comes in/goes out. Many telemarketing centers for example only record the very end of the call where the customer agrees to the sale.

I only see two reasons why they would decide to monitor/record the calls.

1) There is some local law that requires them to do so.

2) They have a contractual obligation to do so.

finally in every state I'm aware of with the exception of Arizona you must inform the other person that they are/can be recorded.; April 7, 2008 at 1:59:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: Hmmmm. Whether it's these guys or someone else...

1. Any way to say they're practicing law without a license? (Negotiating and settling legal claims; in some cases, offering bogus legal advice to settlees...)

2. Are these potentially operating as unlicensed debt collectors? Are these claims for "consumer" purposes?

3. How does their participation affect their possible RICO liability?

--Unlicensed Investigator; April 7, 2008 at 8:41:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: Hmm. This is apparently old information:

http://www.muddlawoffices.com/pr/20060810RIAA.htm; April 7, 2008 at 9:04:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: on topic only in so far as it deals with RIAA, UMG and CD's but I have never ever read an introduction that hits the nail on its head better than the one in

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/umg_v_augusto/AugustoMSJBrief.pdf

via

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/08

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
TROY AUGUSTO’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IMO a definetly "must read" that brings a little smile on your face.

btw. it's a matter before the Honourable Judge Otero who already expressed in a different case before him his concerns "that in [RIAA vs. People] lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants"

Good to know that Mr Auguso is represented by the EFF and a Rowling book loving law firm :-)

Might be interesting to see how this attempt by UMG and RIAA to rewrite copyrightlaw plays out!

--
A_F; April 8, 2008 at 10:57:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...: Alter_Fritz,

That's quite a filing you point us to, and the Harry Potter reference is outstanding! It certainly looks intended to chop off the RIAA's overreach into an area they don't control, no matter how much they wish they did.

I hope he wins easily, gets all his lawyer fees, expenses, and full compensation for all lost business and loss of reputation. The part where he answers the RIAA's contention that the DMCA only applies when they want it to apply is priceless!

-DM; April 8, 2008 at 4:57:00 PM EDT
Jadeic said...: An all-time classic methinks. Thanks for the link Alter_Fritz.

Dave; April 8, 2008 at 8:35:00 PM EDT

Post a Comment

JUDICIAL QUOTATIONS

"[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity." -Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, S.D. California. January 29, 2013, AF Holdings v. Rogers
"The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time." - Hon. Gary R. Brown, Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012, K-Beech v. Does 1-37
"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero, Dist. Judge, Central Dist. California, March 2, 2007, Elektra v. O'Brien, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555
"The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty...[C]ompliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery....[T]he Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14" -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, November 24, 2008, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4
"[C]ounsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...." -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, June 17, 2008, London-Sire v. Does 1-4
"Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. [I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme... to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined." -Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge, District of Maine, January 25, 2008, Arista v. Does 1-27, 2008 WL 222283, modified Oct. 29, 2008
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer." -Hon. Lee R. West, District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma, February 6, 2007, Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532
"[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse." -Hon. S. James Otero, Central District of California, August 29, 2007, SONY BMG v. Does 1-5, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2535
"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."
-Hon. Sam Sparks and Hon. Lee Yeakel, District Judges, Western District of Texas, November 17, 2004, Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053
"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge, Eastern District of Virginia, July 12, 2007, Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388, vacated on reconsideration 6/20/08
"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia, Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico, May 24, 2007, Capitol v. Does 1-16, 2007 WL 1893603
"'Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Hon. Michael J. Davis, Dist. Judge, U.S.District Court, Dist. Minnesota, January 22, 2010, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset
"[T]his court finds that defendants' use of the same ISP and P2P networks to allegedly commit copyright infringement is, without more, insufficient for permissive joinder under Rule 20. This court will sever not only the moving defendants from this action, but all other Doe defendants except Doe 2."
-Hon. W. Earl Britt, District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, February 27, 2008, LaFace v. Does 1-38, 2008 WL 544992
"[L]arge awards of statutory damages can raise due process concerns. Extending the reasoning of Gore and its progeny, a number of courts have recognized that an award of statutory damages may violate due process if the amount of the award is "out of all reasonable proportion" to the actual harm caused by a defendant's conduct.[T]hese cases are doubtlessly correct to note that a punitive and grossly excessive statutory damages award violates the Due Process Clause....."Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel, Dist. Judge, N.D. California, June 1, 2005, In re Napster, 2005 US DIST Lexis 11498, 2005 WL 1287611
"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."-Hon. David G. Trager, Senior District Judge, Eastern Dist. New York, November 9, 2006, UMG v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048
"'[S]tatutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'....(citations omitted) and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'". -Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Dist. Judge, Southern Dist. New York, August 19, 2008, Yurman v. Castaneda
"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts..... [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs." -Hon. Michael J. Davis, District Judge, Dist. Minnesota, September 24, 2008, Capitol v. Thomas
"If there is an asymmetry in copyright, it is one that actually favors defendants. The successful assertion of a copyright confirms the plaintiff's possession of an exclusive, and sometimes very valuable, right, and thus gives it an incentive to spend heavily on litigation. In contrast, a successful defense against a copyright claim, when it throws the copyrighted work into the public domain, benefits all users of the public domain, not just the defendant; he obtains no exclusive right and so his incentive to spend on defense is reduced and he may be forced into an unfavorable settlement." US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., July 9, 2008, Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 532 F.3d 620
"Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.....RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale."
-Hon. James P. Jones, Dist. Judge, Western Dist. Virginia, November 7, 2008, USA v. Dove