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:It only takes a few...

[Otter]

The RIAA's mistake is that they listened to all the pious bullshit about "Don't blame the people who make the technology, blame the people who misuse the technology!" So they went after the people who were explicitly breaking the law and now they're stuck with "OMTFG, yuor suing teh CHILDREN! And teh SINGAL MOTHERS!!!!".

They should have just stuck with crushing the P2P makers, and let the nerds carry on about the importance of placing responsibility where it belongs.

IN SOVIET AMERICA...

[niXcamiC]

RIAA sues you!!!!

Re:Most biased Slashdot article ever?

[Macadamizer]

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.

So what? Presumably the musicians didn't sign their record contracts at gunpoint -- they were free to take their business elsewhere. Again, presumably the contract the record company offered was a better deal for them (or, at least, so they thought at the time) than any other alternative.

Yes, the record comanies are essentially the only game in town if you want to sell millions of albums. Yes, the record companies have substantial bargaining power compared to any particular band, especially one without a track record of sales. But that's irrelevant -- bands could, if they wanted to, figure out how to market and sell their own product if they didn't like the deal being given to them by the record companies. They choose to sign those deals.

Besides, any time anyone supports copyright, some slashdotter steps in and says "but REAL artists aren't in it for the money..."

2) File sharing isn't damaging the record companies. This fact is also borne out by the record profits record companies are now reporting, despite the fact that file sharing has increased substantially over the last couple of years, and the fact that record companies are actually releasing fewer records.

Again, not really relevant as to whether or not copyright infringement is coccuring. It may impact the damages calculations, but under U.S. copyright law, if the copyrights are registered (and they basically all are when it comes to music produced and sold by the record companies), the copyright holder can sue for statutory damages, and never has to show any damages at all. File sharing could result in MORE sales, and the copyright owner would STILL be able to sue for copyright infringement.

3) Record companies could be making use of file sharing as part of major new business models. The biggest problem, though, is that most heads of record companies are out-of-touch old men who not only don't have a clue about the technology, but they barely have a clue about music in the first place.

No questions with that statement.

To sum up, I'm not sure where you were going with your comment, and I'm also unsure as to why you think it's "biased" to claim the record companies' actions amount to legalized extortion, especially when it appears they may have been going after people with very little, if any, evidence of actual infringement. But I'll leave elaboration on those points to you.

Come on, you don't think that the statement "legalized extortion" isn't inflammatory? Besides, it's nonsense anyway -- if it's legal, it ain't extortion.