Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act

devnulljapan is one of many users to let us know that another single mother is taking the fight to the RIAA. More than just standing up to them however, Tanya Anderson has decided to go on the offensive and countersue. In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate the suit identifies violations of the Oregon RICO Act in addition to 'fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.' Ms. Anderson has also demanded a trial by jury.

Comments

Re:Do the time pay the crime.

[kotku]

I am not sorry about being modded troll. Trolls are scary little individuals with thier own opinions unlike the group think that is observed quite pointadly here on slashdot. I haven't achieved a -1 troll for a long time so it is kind of a trophy. Please don't mod me up and ruin my day ;)

Re:MediaSentry?

[typical]

When will people realize that having personal firewall != security?

Re:Introductory sentence

[ZachPruckowski]

Very true. What matters here is the court of public opinion. Whereas the RIAA may seem to the average, computer illiterate American to have a point, and may appear to be the "good guys" versus the pirates, now they have a PR problem.

1) It's a disabled, middle aged, single mother that they're going after. That's a lot of sympathy factor.
2) They accuse the 42 year old mother of an 8 year old of downloading "gangster rap"? And at 4 am? I mean, did anyone actually think that that made a lot of sense? Did RIAA read the suit before they sent it out?
3) They snooped illegally on her computer (I promise that the idea of anyone screwing around with your stuff in secret will incense anyone on a gut level)
4) They found nothing, and demanded the money of a person they knew was innocent.
5) She uses the words "extortion" and "spy" and "steal" in her brief.
6) The suit is under laws designed to stop the Mob and hackers. Nice company for the RIAA to keep.

All that is from the full article.

I honestly want to know what RIAA idiot lawyer even looked at half of that and didn't drop the suit and beg for freaking mercy. The RIAA answer was that to drop the case against her when they knew she was innocent because to let her go would encourage people to fight them.

Wow, that's almost unbelievable. I'm waiting for the "Oh, I was joking" post from someone.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[SilverspurG]

if all these lawsuits were simply about the RIAA crying "no fair." But they are not

Yes, they are.

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[Macadamizer]

Yes, they are.

Oh, well why didn't you just say so earlier? Oh, I guess you did. My mistake. I didn't realize you were citing verifiable facts, I thought you were just giving your opinion earlier. My bad.