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.
The RIAA's mistake is that they have confused "only 1 in 1,000 people will make the effort to stand up to us" with "no one will stand up to us". If they'd sued 1 person with those odds, there would be very little chance of adverse consequences. But they sued 10s of 1000s of people, so those rare 1 in 1000 individuals are becoming a real pain ;-)
I received one of these letters in the mail, it claimed that I owed $4,583 for having downloaded "Enter Sandman" by Metallica... Well, I've never downloaded that MP3, and I've never even owned a Metallica CD to rip the song from.
Reason: I really don't like Metallica, at all. (simple!)
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.
In recent weeks I've read more and more about the RIAA and the MPAA. I think they should help the tobacco industry run new campaigns... the tobacco guys could learn a thing or two from these greedies...
My ZooLoo
Is there any way to help her? Maybe a fund for her legal team? Or just a place to send her well wishes?
What exactly is this company/software - and how do they go about hacking into your computer?
Seems like most of the non-casual downloaders would have enough security (firewall - router, etc) to prevent most attempts.
Why?
RIAA wants P2P networks shutdown due to these copyright issues.
Universities and other organizations block P2P because of these same copyright issues, under pressure from lawsuit threats by the RIAA.
===
The RIAA is a threat to P2P, even if you are just sharing original works of art.
Legal users may not have as much of an interest in seeing RIAA get a punch to the kidneys, but there is still some cause for interest, I'd say.
[Legal uses of P2P filesharing are an innocent bystander, but they still will get gunned down with illegals]
(( this coming from someone who had his access removed at a university for sharing the Project Gutenberg DVD on eDonkey ))
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
Some of this appears to be crap, or at least just lawyers playing hardball. She claims that there was no such material on her computer, and that the RIAA broke into the computer to locate such material. The first
may be true - it may be a genuine mistake, but the second argument I really doubt. I believe that the RIAA does not do any more than search public P2P search engines for their copyrighted content, and her argument that this searching is trespass to chattels is nonsense.
That being said, I would blame her lawyer, not her personally. But still, it's hard to know how seriously the RICO allegations should be taken, or whether they're just a way to make the case a pain for the RIAA.
Couldn't that be construed as a violation of DMCA? And while we're at it, who gave MediaSentry the authority to conduct an electronic wiretap?
I sincerely hope that Ms. Andersen's countersuit is successful and MediaSentry is forced out of business as a result of the damages awarded.
The RIAA's going to have to walk carefully in the middle of a road between suing people who are judgement proof, but who might receive pro bono representation and suing the rich or connected who can afford to fight. Anything that throws a monkey wrench in their efforts to maintain their distribution monopoly is a good thing.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
"Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison."
That's not a very big deal to the RIAA because:
a. 25,000 isn't much to them
b. you can't send an organization to prison. Even if someone did go to prison, it probably wouldn't be anyone very high up.
c. The most important reason? I think racketeering is too creative a charge in this case. I am NOT a legal expert, so this is just a guess and I may be wrong. Yes, the RIAA uses the courts to intimidate people, but so do plenty of organizations and people. It's not what I think of when I hear the word racketeering however. I think of someone in the mob or a corrupt businessman threatening your well-being. Not someone taking you to court for potentially stealing from them (and breaking the law).
I hate what what the RIAA is doing - they are esentially using tax payer money to attack the typical tax payer. Everybody I know and their mom has downloaded an MP3. But I don't think racketeering charges are the answer.
Napster was really shutdown because of "mission" statements made by the founders/creators of Napter. Those statements basically stated that they developed the tools as a means to undermine RIAA, etc. That is what pushed things over the edge in the courts eyes.
RICO statute and trial by Jury is the right way to do this. She just needs the money to sustain the effort. Please put up a paypal or another donation account so we can help.
I've heard Fraud isn't Fraud unless it's investigated. Who investigates RIAA practices? All the cases have been corporate layers versus starving students. The student is usually getting sued for 6x to 100x tuition they cannot afford in every case, I think there is something worth investigating there. I even heard that the RIAA attempts to recruit the student to pay off their debt.
The list of charges is quite long, and not a few will stick, most importantly the trespass to chattels and quite possibly barratry.
However you can firget about a case defining trial. The RIAA will simply settle, as they have forced others to settle, therby bypassing the entire justice system and leaving P2P eternally ambiguous.
May the Maths Be with you!
Sounds like others should join this one and turn it into a class action suit.
What is a 9 digit Internet Protocol Address (IPA)?
Law.com is reporting that MP3.com has filed a malpractice lawsuit again Cooley Godward , a law firm, alleging that it was responsible for allowing MP3.com to launch and subsequently be sued for copyright infringement by giving bad advice on the legality of My.MP3.Com ( MP3.com Sues Cooley Over Legal Advice ). The charges are quite loaded, alleging that Cooley was basically inept their legal analysis of fair use and other copyright doctrines, and perhaps even misrepresented to MP3.com about expert testimony the Cooley firm had secured.
This isn't a small lawsuit either. MP3.com wants $175
Ron Paul
The fact that an organization so huge could be so incompetent is mind-boggling.
It is a criminal enterprise that threatens to extort money from its own customers. Moreover there is self admitted collusion in this enterprise.
I guess you're brain isn't working today, to help you out, here's a 9 digit IP address for you: 10.10.10.101
This is an example of what to expect if we let the Government aggregate various sources of data on the people, both from their own records and from private companies via "patriotic" and "for safety" laws.
Couple this massive database with the phenomenon of law enforcement favoring the more "profitable" side (traffic tickets, etc), which probably leaves less personnel for the parts involving heavy thinking, I expect that a lot of the research process for narrowing down (or indeed, generating) suspect lists will happen in the computer. Which, I should remind you, "does not lie".
Not to mention the obvious possibility of blanket application of "the law" via simple matches in a database, kind of what RIAA is doing currently. Only that when the government does it, there will be much less recourse, what with the imposed gags, secrecy and unaccountability they seek.
I've been thinking for ages that the RIAA should be sued for Electronic Theft/Illegal access. I hope this pans out, and the RIAA's practice of tracking users. I strongly suspect that they use trojans/viruses as a means of "obtaining" IP addresses, will be brought into the legal spotlight. Sorry, no links but if someone finds some good info, let me know :)
Furtehrmore, the RIAA has repeatedly attempted to force ISP's to drop PAID user connections to 0 upload - which sounds a lot like M$'s monopoly practices:( http://www.charter.com/help/RIAA.aspx )
I'm not saying that this particular woman is wrong. I'm not saying that I like current copyright law. (The terms should not be effectively permanent, and the rights of first use, personal use, and first sale have been eroded way too much.) I just think it's way too easy to go with the Slashdot groupthink effect and say "RIAA sucks."
Find free books.
Before reading the statements I thought, ok, single mother, it's possible she doesn't know what her kid was doing with their PC, then I saw 8yr old and 4:24am. There's no way an 8yr old is going to be up after 4am.
"10. When Ms. Andersen contacted Settlement Support Center, she was advised that her personal home computer had been secretly entered by the record companies' agents, MediaSentry."
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.
This is assuming all her statements are true and what she claims the RIAA agents said is also true.
It would be nice for her if she recorded her calls, after telling them she was recording it, to the RIAA Collection Center, I mean "Settlement Support Center" and getting their statements in writing couldn't hurt.
She claims to not like "gangster rap" and that MediaSentry, oh look we finally have a name for the IP bounty hunters, hacked/secretly entered her computer. So do the files exist on her computer or not? If she has no interest in it then the files should not be there unless downloaded by some spyware they infected her with or the files don't exist and MediaSentry lied and made up the list. And they tell her that even though they believe she is innocent they cannot drop the case because it would be an admission of error, either way it doesn't look good for the RIAA.
And what's with IP address being IPA? IP=Internet Protocol NOT Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property = Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property != IP! greedy bastards
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
I wonder how much money the RIAA has made off of this for the labels. They seem to be police, judge, jury, and collections for profit. I wonder how much of their record profits are from these lawsuits.
Well, I know the RIAA has helped me. I have purchased no new media in over a year now (never downloaded it). And it has helped the local band scene as many people I know go watch the bands and purchase the CDs where the bands play rather than feed the beast. Overall it is less expensive and I have made more friends.
My kids, and many of their friends are growing up on live performances from local artists. We have been to Beef and Board (a very *nice* playhouse), the local small playhouses, the parks, ethnic presentations, and much more. I never could have forced them to go to these things until the RIAA (and now MPAA) stepped in. I never thought I would live to see the day where the labels would make that happen.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
I'm very much looking forward to the day in which most artists market their product directly to their customers, or use downloaded recordings on the Internet (perhaps via P2P) to promote tours, and cut out the middleman as completely as possible.
Kythe
There is nothing in any law, copyright or otherwise, that requires you to provide a license to share your own works.
That's not quite correct. Technically, copyright law does impose a default license on the use, copying and distribution of any protected work. That license is: none at all.
Copyright law also grants creators the right to choose some other, less restrictive license if they want to. It doesn't say they have to choose a less restrictive license, and unless someone can prove that they do have a less restrictive license from the creator, the default "none at all" license is the one the courts will use.
Thing is, that "none at all" license doesn't give a creator any legal way to distribute their work to others. It gives them the legal tools to lock the work in a vault and throw away the key, but that's about it. Any creator who wants to distribute their work does have to choose some kind of license that's less restrictive than the default "none at all" one, because without that alternative license, there's no way for the distribution to be legal. That's just a basic fact of copyright law, and has nothing to do with P2P at all.
So instead of saying that Limewire is forcing creators to choose a license, it's more correct to say that Limewire requires creators to post the licenses that copyright law forces them to choose if they want to distribute the work at all.
Copyright law doesn't force anyone to distribute their work, but it does force them to choose a license if they decide to distribute their work.
At a more general level, the idea that some protected works have licenses and others makes things complicated and messy. It's much tidier, from a legal point of view, to say, "there is always a license", and then let people bicker about the specific terms of the license on any given work. Copyright law sets the default license that will be used in the absence of any other word from the creator, and gives the creator the right to set any other terms that they choose.
I mean at least that's how it is here in canada, every godamn cd we buy there's a charge on for the nice music/movie industry
It's the same in the US, all recordable media that's sold blank has a charge or tax that's supposed to go to entertainment companies. Cassette and vhs tapes as well as cds and I wouldn't be supprised if blank dvds are included. This brings up a question I have. What if you are an artist yourself and you produce all your own stuff, I've met some people that do this, how do you buy media without having to pay the tax? And how can you get a share of the tax?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Just a few points:
1)iTunes is the #1 online music store. The "obsolete business model" argument is, well, obsolete.
This statement meants absolutely nothing. Something has to be the "#1 online music store" unless they don't exist at all. The record companies are fighting against the iTunes store for the very reason it became popular: it is affordable.
2)Touring is expensive and is usually done to promote an album release.
Sorry to say that touring is where the money is. If you are an artist you tend to make next to nothing on your CD sales because of the crazy slice the labels take. When you tour you make money directly.
To quote Forbes.com:
"The top 10% of artists make money selling records. The rest go on tour," says Scott Welch, who manages singers Alanis Morissette and LeAnn Rimes.
I think 10% is optimistic.
Perhaps the best way to fight the RIAA is to use cases like this countersuit.
But let's get serious about this and make some money.
The law firm sets up an web bank account and links to PayPal or some other global small payment funds transfer provider. People who hate the RIAA put up a $1 to this firm's defense fund related to the case. If a million people send a $1 to destroy the RIAA, then there is a million dollars to fight the RIAA. Then the firm countersues for $10,000,000 in damages. If they win and collect, then each person who put in $1 to the defense fund gets $5 from the settlement minus expenses. If the countersuit loses, everyone loses a dollar. But the RIAA is now going up against an organized force that has millions of dollars and a serious desire to destroy them and take their money (and the money of their corporate sponsors). The RIAA will think twice about just randomly selecting people to fuck with.
In the real world, there is no justice and fairness. The only thing that works against a large corporation with a lot of money is an large organization of people who each contribute a small amount of money with the specific purpose of forcing the corporation to back off. (and pay them back for the trouble). Get used to it.
You've either never had to sign one yourself or you're financially wealthy enough where you would never need to sign one. The contracts are crap and the only reason why the artists sign is because they need the money more than the company needs them.
Then... how do you explain artists (successful ones) that re-sign with record companies? Or successful artists that, at the end of their contract term, shop around, and sign up with yet another record company. I'm not talking about starving bar bands, either. Or how about successful artists that, having spent years within just such contracts, form their own companies, and then seek out and sign other artists?
Typical preaching from the top of the mountain bunk.
I'd say that your comment is more typical "all businesses and all contracts with businesses are evil" FUD. The notion that somehow starving artists are slaves to their business partners (who often as not lose everything they put into the relationship), is exactly wrong. Rather, those people that decide to pirate an artist's work are making pet entertainment slaves out of the artists.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Apparently (according to their website), MediaSentry was just purchased by "SafeNet Inc".
Slashdot has a new quandry -- SafeNet apparently makes Linux products.
But, on the other hand, they have a bunch of software patents (many of which appear to be devoted to doing DRM in hardware).
Good or bad, good or bad...hmm...
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
That's exactly the point. The government props up the RIAA/MPAA with immoral laws. They don't make money by pleasing their customers, they make it by illegal collusion to prevent the competition from being able to get movies into theaters and records into shops. The reason they hate the internet is that it helps put independent artists on a level playing field.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
It should be public record, so I don't think it would matter. They charge a 'reasonable fee' to access, but the information is public information.
To illistrate this somewhat, One of the news chanels did an interview with the dixie chicks. A question about how thier fame and fortune effected thier everyday lives was asked and they resonded with somethign about not being rich. After the interviewer told them how much money was being made form the reported sales of thier CDs, they were able to go back and get another contract giving them more then four time the amount they werre making from sales.
This was before the overseas political comments. I'm not sure if they could do it again or even now.
(quote)
1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.
It does, but this is an issue between the artist and the record labels. Those contracts are willingly signed, and it varies between record labels. Nobody's holding a gun to people's heads to sign up with record labels, but they seem to keep doing it.
(/quote)
Nobody's holding a gun to the artist's head, but when you're at that stage, you want your music to get out there no matter what. A teenager doesn't learn guitar because he plans on striking it rich, he learns because he loves music. If that kid is suddenly offered a record deal, he's going to beam with pride and be happy that his product is getting out there, gaining fame and recognition. If he refuses the deal, he goes back to his basement studio and backyard gigs. The choice is rather simple, money usually has little to do with it.
The other way is to pay for everything yourself, and somehow manage distribution and advertising whichever way you can. It's not easy, and for most people it's downright impossible. This heavy-handed advantage is the reason why record labels are so ruthless and cunning, they have no competition besides each other, and even then they are associated in this RIAA cartel. They control the whole operation end-to-end, have enough power to sue any opponents out of existence, and leave no room for anyone else to enter the market. If they were to wield firearms and speak with funny accents, they'd be virtually indistinguishable from the mob.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Insanity would require my post to have some factual errors; otherwise it is perfectly in harmony with reality, after all. Perhaps you might show some of them, since you've obviously noticed some; after all, why else would you speak about insanity ?
Everyone once knew that Earth was flat, Sun orbited the Earth and nothing ever changed in the spheres higher than Moon. Just because they hadn't done a formal study didn't invalidate that. Only it turned out to be a load of bullshit.
Since we are talkng about P2P filesharing networks, like Gnutella and Kazaa, here, would you please clarify what you mean by "P2P sites" ?
No, my argument is that
I'm sure this would make a lot more sense if I was trying to rally the simple minded or knew Kool-Aid.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
So the specifics will probably reveal themselves when the time comes. Although, seeing as CD sales are actually going up in the US and UK, the biggest music markets, it doesn't look like the industry is hurting much at all. Despite the "pirate scare", people are still buying loads of music.
Anyway, specifics?
An artist can make money in different ways. People are still willing to pay for music even though it can be downloaded for free, so that's one way. The artist can also go on tour and do concerts, and make money that way too. You can also sell t-shirts, and whatever other items you might want to offer to your fans.
So there's no shortage of ways to make money. Maybe the music industry as we know it will die, but music won't go away, and artists will still be able to make money, even without selling music directly.
My guess is that the music will be a way to do marketing for a band. The music attracts fans, who in turn will go to concerts, buy stuff, and so on. The band can of course offer CDs or DVDs for sale, or even digital music, perhaps with special offers for people who pay for the music.
The business is not the hard part. The hard part is killing the current music industry and replacing it with something else. It'll take time to do.
Clever signature text goes here.
Ah yes, have a look at this.
Clever signature text goes here.