RIAA Extortion Site Thanks You, "Looks Forward To Future Business Together"

Isn’t that nice? The RIAA knows that even after they’ve extorted $3,456.23 from you, you’re still going to buy their products. The extorted college student posted this anonymously, because they were afraid of the RIAA finding out they’d posted it. This is scary. —MEGHANN MARCO

RIAA likes piracy [Tech reviews via BoingBoing]

PREVIOUSLY: The RIAA P2PLawsuit Letter Sent To College Students
RIAA Bullies College Students With P2PLawsuits.com

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. kerry says:

    They must be making a killing off of the suckers who pay the “settlement fee.”$3500?! What college student has that much money laying around, and why not use it to retain a lawyer, instead?

  2. mattshu says:

    …Thereby proving that the #1 seed in the tourney wasn’t just pulled out of someone’s ass.

  3. faust1200 says:

    Unless you’re one of the really big fish I doubt the RIAA will ACTUALLY pursue you in court.(because of a poor expense/profit ratio) So they scare the snot out of kids and give them a web address so they can give their “protection” money. I know it’s easy for me to say this because I’m not in the cross-hairs but DON’T PAY. Let them come after you the old fashioned expensive way, if they do so at all.

  4. r81984 says:

    If I received a letter from them, I would destroy my harddrive. I would rip it apart, burn it, and then throw it into a dumpster.
    They then can take me to court, but will have no proof since my computer will have no record.

    Buying a new hard drive seems better than paying 3500 dollars.

  5. BillyShears says:

    I’m having a real hard time understanding how the RIAA’s tactics are even remotely legal.

  6. timmus says:

    “Look forward to future business together.” Engrish? Is that for real?

  7. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    Wow, it’s just a great day for the RIAA! In addition to that, just in the last couple of days, the RIAA is stepping up their campaign to kill off internet radio (again) by forcing webcasters to pay insane royalties.

    http://www.save-internet-radio.com/2007/03/02/save-interne

    http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Save_Internet_Radio_from_the

    Go RIAA, you bunch of slimebag asshats.

  8. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    And, coincidentally, the RIAA takes another shot at killing off Internet radio…

    http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Save_Internet_Radio_from_the
    http://www.save-internet-radio.com/2007/03/02/save-interne

    Dear RIAA,

    You are a bunch of slimebag asshats.

  9. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    Sorry for the double post. :(

  10. Skeptic says:

    “If I received a letter from them, I would destroy my harddrive. I would rip it apart, burn it, and then throw it into a dumpster.
    They then can take me to court, but will have no proof since my computer will have no record”

    Possibly a bad idea. Someone tried that and the RIAA got a default judgment for everything they wanted.

    The real problem with these settlements is that you have to admit guilt, whether you are actually guilty or not, but the RIAA does not and cannot indemnify you from future lawsuits from them or the the other rights holders–including the composers and publishers, and recordings by companies that are not RIAA members–or criminal prosecution.

  11. bitplayer says:

    Throwing out your hard drive means anything. The proof is your IP address, which really isn’t proof but that’s what they claim. I think saying that you have a wireless router with an open connection is your best bet. You can’t be held accountable for someone else’s stealing.

  12. Trick says:

    @Skeptic:

    “If I received a letter from them, I would destroy my harddrive. I would rip it apart, burn it, and then throw it into a dumpster.
    They then can take me to court, but will have no proof since my computer will have no record”

    Possibly a bad idea. Someone tried that and the RIAA got a default judgment for everything they wanted.

    That is why you should use some type of external drive to save your music. The RIAA can examine your HDD all day long and never find anything or prove that you are using one.

  13. I think the term ‘a short-bus full of cockslaps’ would be an appropriate description of the RIAA.

  14. bhall03 says:

    Still not entirely smart. Even though the poster deleted his/her info, there probably aren’t that many payments to the RIAA for exactly that amount.

  15. Mike says:

    Had the person who destroyed their hard drive already been subpoenaed and had a formal case pending? Because that’s not what’s going on here.

    The RIAA is only sending threatening letters to people. If there’s no case pending, would they not till be justified in destroying their hard drives if that’s what they wanted to do?

  16. 44 in a Row says:

    The RIAA is only sending threatening letters to people. If there’s no case pending, would they not till be justified in destroying their hard drives if that’s what they wanted to do?

    IANAL, but I believe spoliation of evidence comes into play not only when there’s an active case, but when you should reasonably expect a case to be filed against you. A letter like that, I’d think, is reasonable notice that litigation may be commenced soon.

  17. jeblis says:

    Umm he posted anonymously yet that’s likely a unique amount in the picture. The RIAA would have no trouble finding out who posted it.

  18. Stepehn Colbert says:

    @44 in a Row: I dont know that I would be able to reasonably expect a lawsuit to be filed against me from an organization that tries to sue dead women. I’d shirk it off as another ona the RIAA’s crazy hair-brained mistakes again, something someone with reason would reneg upon once they’d learned of their error.

  19. Havok154 says:

    The biggest problem is that these aren’t criminal cases, just civil ones so they don’t need to prove you did something, they just need to make sure you can’t prove you didn’t. They can pull some BS list of songs downloaded from your IP address and win. The only way to beat then is to prove that they really don’t have the proof they say they do. Usually they don’t, so if you go to court, there’s a good chance of winning. This site was just made in hopes that people would rather take the easy way of paying over the site then going to court. The easier it is to settle, the less chance people will fight it.

  20. Helvetian says:

    @r81984: That’s pretty much what I would do. I would fight the lawsuit and discard any evidence. However fortunately for me, I’ve never used any of those P2P services. I just buy music from Zune Marketplace or URGE.

  21. dmc says:

    My favorite part about this is how the RIAA’s extortion website is laid out just like the amazon.com checkout process, complete with step by step indicator graphics. They have succeded in mass producing lawsuits and streamlining the collection of their protection money.

  22. r3m0t says:

    @faust1200: Actually, they will pursue you in court. They retract their original offer ($3k-$5k) and file suit. If you don’t turn up, they get a default judgment against you. If you fail to hire an effective lawyer (or get the case done pro bono) then you will also lose. The cost to them, on the other hand, is minimal.

  23. chartrule says:

    Once appon a time you could go to a concert without any lipsinking or a trailer full of sound engineering equipment and the singers would sound the same in the concert venue as they did on the recording.

    These days most singers the RIAA represent are overpayed no talent loosers who without a dozen sound engineers and remixers would sound just like someone killing a cat

    maybe someday the talent will return

  24. rcleary says:

    If you have to pay, pay the ARTISTS, the people who created the music. Don’t pay the RIAA, but PAY THE ARTISTS. It’s their living; you wouldn’t want someone coming into your job and stealing your livelihood, would you?

    Free music is NOT a God-given right.Artists are people who need to eat. Sheesh, this is a no-brainer. Pay 10 dollars a month to a subscription service and get all the music you want, legally. This is a lot cheaper than a lawsuit from the RIAA, and the artists who made the songs get to eat.

  25. poodlehead says:

    I only share music that was made by artists who were never recognized in their time, were paid a pittance for their music by the record companies, and then shamelessly exploited long after they could have ever profited from their talent. I suppose thus that I am promoting someone’s investment portfolio and contributing marginally if not at all to the development of new music and the concern of the RIAA. Morally, I find no qualm in my practice.