Slashdot Mirror
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.
Great news! It's about time somebody steped up the fight against the RIAA. Lets hope more people follow.
However, I have some serious doubts about the accusation of invasion of privacy and computer tresspass standing up in court... From what I understand, the RIAA isnt actually hacking into your computer to see what you sharing, they are simply using the same filesharing tools you are using to check out what your sharing. There is no tresspass involved, as far as I can see. And the privacy charge goes out the window because you are openely sharing the files for anybody who wants to see them, including the RIAA.
Napster was fully shutdown years ago, regardless of whether the songs on the network were legal. MP3.com had a vast free music network, but someone decided to upload music that wasn't theirs; mp3.com got sued and had to sell their domain (and no longer do we have access to those files). Limewire will now require licensing in its files, hardly something you'd do for your own personal files.
Even if you are sharing legal items, RIAA is making it harder to do so on p2p networks.
"Under RICO", a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes--27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes--within a 10-year period and (in the opinion of the U. S. Attorney bringing the case) has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages."
So for everyone in every other state in the Union, sue away!
"Crux", not "cruft." Typos are one thing, but that error completely reversed the meaning of the sentence.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Note: The following is a bit off-topic.
According to an article at heise.de, LimeWire is going to support attaching a Creative Commons licence to your own works and sharing them.
Although one has to wonder whether this is going to work out. I mean, what prevents your average W4r3Z D00dZ from attaching a Creative Commons licence to a work ripped from a CD? In the end, LimeWire LLC is probably going out of business, anyway.
Couldn't that be construed as a violation of DMCA?
Breaking into computers in order to spy on people is not a violation of the DMCA; it's a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (as it says right in the article).
And while we're at it, who gave MediaSentry the authority to conduct an electronic wiretap?
There's no evidence that they conducted anything resembling a wiretap, nor is there evidence that they broke into any computer. That's not how these P2P monitoring companies generally work (since it's so obviously illegal). They just observe which IP addresses are sharing which files. That's not a wiretap.
The RIAA's lawsuits are bad, but this countersuit appears to be overreaching in the opposite direction.
I am not positive, but I think most ISPs stay out of that sort of thing. They try to be 'common carriers' like the telephone service, that is, they just make sure the connection is there and stay out of the way. Granted, sometimes (like the phone companies) they do get involved, but for the most part, they stay out of the way. Once they start policing the system, they become responsible for what is on their network.
Nope not a copyright issue either. Its about the RIAA going after innocent victims because they believe them to be an easy target for striking fear into the public. Innocent targets and public fear==Terrorism? IMHO, if the counter suit's allegations are true, it is terrorism.
I hate to say it, the RIAA has every right to go after those committing music thievery. But it must be done legally or they are no worse than those they go after.
FTA:
15. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies' claims.
At this point it ceases to be about what the RIAA wants (copyright protection) because terrorists don't have rights.
Aww fuck it, mod me down WTF do I know I make about what the victim does for income.
I want this account deleted.
You can get the complete records on this by using Pacer. See https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl? court_id=00idx
You need a credit card, but using pacer is suprisingly cheap. The case is properly cited as "3:05-cv-00933-AS Atlantic Recording Corporation et al v. Andersen". When you search, search Oregon Civil court, and use "Andersen, Tanya" has a search. You can see who the lawyers are, what papers have been filed, and the docket describing when the case will go to trial.
Someone didn't "upload" music that wasn't theirs. What MP3.com did was take advantage of the Right to format shift, starting a music locker service that worked like this: a user put a legit CD in their CD-ROM and it "beamed" the music to the locker in MP3 format. Now what they actually did was buy a ton of CDs and rip them to MP3, so that users only had to have access to a real cd to instantly get access to the exact same songs in MP3 format. To that end, MP3.com went to great lengths to make sure what they were doing was legal to begin with...and remember, it is legal to format shift AND the user had to have a real, physical CD of the same music to access the service (at which point they could have just ripped it to MP3 to begin with).
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
A real IP is only 8 digits.
For example, slashdot.org is 4223FA96.
FC Closer
There is still an outstanding debt to these people, and it's still in collections. I hope she sets a precedent (which involves tying several statutes together) by winning.
Unless you have agreed to a settlement, or a court has entered a judgment against you, you have no outstanding debt. The RIAA at best has an outstanding claim against you.
This is an important distinction. If the claim has been reported to Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, etc., you can have it erased by following the dispute procedure outlined in sec. 1681(i) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Remember, this is not a disputed commercial transaction where someone can even allege the existence of a contract -- this is a private attempt to collect a penalty in the form of a 'settlement'. If neither you nor a judge says that the 'debt' exists, it does not exist.
Not so long as they had the permission of the copyright owner of the actual file(s) they copied.
They're probably guilty of a host of other things, but not copyright infringement.
It looks like MediaSentury is full of it half the time anyway! Read this thread http://seclists.org/lists/fulldisclosure/2005/Jan/ 0085.html
RICO statutes are criminal, so I don't think they can settle their way out of this. But I think that the case would have to be brought before a judge by an Oregon district attorney though.
Ms. Anderson is one of the mothers previously mentioned who is taking a stand against the RIAA. (Slashdot article, direct link) She was sued by the RIAA, and after offering up her computer to their investigators and explainging that she did not and could not have shared those file, the suit was dropped, only to picked up a short time later by another member of the RIAA.
From the article:
"I have the least expensive computer system you can buy from Dell. The type you order off television for $499.00. It was purchased in the summer of 2002 and has the smallest hard drive they make. I have no cd writer on it and the cd-rom that I do have, does not even work correctly.
"I live alone with my 8-year-old daughter (who would have been seven at the time the alleged occurrence took place). I am a single mom who is disabled and unable to work. I live on Social Security disability and struggle to support my daughter and myself. If I am put in a position where I need to defend myself regarding this situation, it would create extreme financial hardship on me. I have no money and did not do what is being said. I also must admit that all this stuff that has been occurring with this whole ordeal has triggered my medical condition to flare lately.
"I have always been against music downloading. In fact, I have been a member of BMG's music club for quite some time and I purchase my music either from there or from Target. When I first got my computer set up almost three years ago, I had a friend set it up for me since I did not know how to do it. She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check
of my computer and it is no where on there.
"These files you are speaking accusing me of sharing (which Mr. Eiler told me about), are not and never have been on my computer system. Several of those artists, I have never even heard of! One, I understand, is a rap song. I am 42-years-old and do not even like rap music. The login that this person who did this apparently used, which Mr. Eiler told me of, is not a login name I have ever used or heard of.
"There is no one at my household who could have done what is being said at all. Mr. Eiler had brought up the fact that maybe a babysitter could have done it and that is impossible because I seldom have a sitter since I can't afford to pay one and am usually home."
This typo completely changes the point of the comment, so it's worth correcting here.
/.)
This isn't a small lawsuit either. MP3.com wants $175 million.
Here's the relavent quote from the original article:
The suit, MP3.com Inc. v. Cooley Godward, 266625, says MP3.com has paid out in excess of $175 million in settlements, judgments and legal fees.
I thought the same things probably everyone else did, wondering if that was sarcasm or MP3.com being silly; so I actually looked (holy shit someone RTFLink on
~Rebecca
CD sales are down. It doesn't matter if you believe file-sharing is damaging record companies. It's their intellectual property. Should we believe it's okay to not compensate John Carmack for his years of work on Doom 3 because he's rich enough to drive a Ferrari and id made millions off the game?
... You might be interested in an actual artist's take on the situation. It's rather old now, having been published in 2002, but it's highly illuminating in terms of both the effect of free music downloads and the nature of the RIAA and recording companies.
Please note that record companies != artists
Don't assume that the RIAA represents the interests of artists - it quite clearly does not.
Bzzzzt, wrong. But thanks for playing.
From www.copyright.gov
"Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration."
and if you look at www.copyright.gov/register you'll see that you don't need a laywer, don't need to file a petition, and costs between $30 and $70, depending on what form the work takes. But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of your comments you stupid twatwaffle.
--I don't want the world, I just want your half.
What the heck are you talking about? I signed employment contracts with every employer I've ever worked for, from McDonalds to General Electric.
Are you using some strict terminology about what constitutes an "enployement contract" beyond the papers you have to sign on the first day of work?
Again, not in the U.S. In 49 of the 50 states (Montana being the exception), employment is "at will" and generally without contract.
What does "at will" employment have to do with contracts? My employment is "at will", I know this because it says so in my contract!
From their website...
"On June 2, 2005 SafeNet (NASDAQ: SFNT) announced its intent to acquire MediaSentry; the transaction closed on June 13, 2005. SafeNet, just named as the fastest growing of the top 200 IT companies by Network World magazine with 205% annual revenue growth, develops encryption technologies to protect communications, intellectual property, and digital identities, and offers a full spectrum of products including hardware, software and chips.
SafeNet has a successful and growing rights management business focus. The combination of SafeNet's strong security and existing copyright protection products and MediaSentry's innovative anti-piracy and business management services provides customers with a comprehensive suite of best-of-breed security offerings."
It's now SafeNet (most likely to try to shield itself from any RICO complaints), and the contact information is...
4690 Millennium Drive
Belcamp, MD 21017
Tel: 410-931-7500
TTY Users: 800-735-2258
Fax: 410-931-7524
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Funny, I was just reading about this last night.. the book title escapes me, but it's something like "How not to ruin your career in music". Prince, upon gaining his independence and eventually his stage name back, actually did re-negotiate with a record company for his newest albums; when asked why he was willing to deal with record companies again, he stated that he was now in a position of enough power that the record companies would never dare to propose owning his master recordings, having copyright on his compositions, etc. You know, all the things they like to do to the little musicians.
So artists that make it big only deal with record companies once they have enough clout to deal as equals.
ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?