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.
We're the RIAA. Boo!
This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for.
Is this really true? If you use P2P to share original works of art (nothing is stopping you from doing it) - for instance a personal flickr - or to share legitimate files like Linux distros, why would you really care about someone fighting the RIAA regarding copyright issues? This doesn't really seem like a P2P issue, but rather a copyright infringement issue.
> In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate
How can you 'put' something where it already is?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
There was another case last year in which an individual fought back against the RIAA. That case quietly went away, and there was no mention of a settlement. Please MAKE SOME NOISE about this case! Let the public see the tangled web of lies the recording industry has cast, and make sure that records of this case remain open for reference by all of the future victims they will undoubtably harrass and intimidate in their efforts to regain lost revenue from their failing business practices.
In an age when the common people are routinely intimidated and threatened by corporations whom they cannot possibly afford to face in a court of law, one can't help but believe that justice is dead.
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.
"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!
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.
Good luck I suppose is in order.
While we may all feel that the RIAA has all all the trappings and actions of the Soprano crew, somehow I don't think that particular claim is going to wash with the the courts. On the other hand, it is out of the books of law enforcement in terms of hitting the accused with a large number of charges, most of which get thrown out, but some stick. Enough to make it worthwhile to go to court. This is a civil case, but the idea is the same.
The interesting thing to me is that is a sign of the RIAA cases startng to get out-of-hand from the RIAA's point of view. People are counter-suing, and now with omnibus claims. Rather than backing down against their legal might, some people are starting to fight back and they run the case of making sympathetic figures of those they are going after and making themselves out to be bad guys to the general public. Up to now, all the publicity in the mainstream has gone for the most part, the RIAA's way. This type of thing if it continues can harden the general public against the RIAA making their present tactics counter-productive. And as a by-product, can make it harder to find sympathetic jurors and judges to their cause.
The big fear I would have if I were the RIAA, is that sooner or later unless they change tactics, they could face class action lawsuits.
This is a nice shot across the bow of 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.
RICO should be easily recognized by programmers. A RICO crime is like an array of individual crimes. It's the more manageable collection structure, both for racketeers racking up crimes into organzied crime businesses, and for prosecutors targeting them with evidence of those crimes. It's like the inverse of a "class action suit", which itself should be familiar to object-oriented programmers. With the law reinventing various programming patterns, how long will it be before we can submit new laws to a "justice compiler" to test whether it will execute? Something like a lintian "constitutionality validator"?
--
make install -not war
Like there's a GOOD week to be an RIAA exec. :)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
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.
Hopefully the industry will get bitch-slapped by this. If this lady were to win, then people the RIAA has "successfully sued" might ban together and sue the RIAA. It could potentially get really messy for the RIAA.
The industry basically needs to realize that their products are too expensive, and that the quality is not as good. They need to really get behind the legal download model, such as iTunes rather than making innuendos about "decapiting" it.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
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.
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
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
Offering the RIAA a chance to settle for only $6,000.
If what she claims is true, i.e. that Media Sentry broke into her computer to snoop around, then THEY are guilty of copyright infringement whenever they opened one of her files and had it sent over the network for inspection!
RIAA Agent Smith: Tell me, Ms. Anderson... what good is a phone call...if you're unable to speak?
//had to. shoot me now.
-- often wrong; never in doubt
- Well documented widespread use of drugs among execs and performers
- Alleged extensive use of bribery to ensure air time
- Women singers expected to look like prostitutes
- Male performers expected to look like and behave like violent criminals
- Large output of music advocating abuse of women, carrying and use of guns to settle disputes, drug taking and attacks on police.
In what way are the members of the RIAA NOT like organised criminal and racketeers?Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I called this over two years ago.
6 062
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77984&cid=692
I should be a lawyer.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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."
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
You scapegoat "greedy corporations" with non-specific accusations in order to distract from discussing the artists not getting paid
I'm not sure whether or not you mean to imply that illegal file sharing=artists not getting paid, but this does open the door to an interesting conversation I had recently with the former president of a prominent record company (retired about a year and a half ago). He told me several interesting things:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kythe
iTunes is the #1 online music store. The "obsolete business model" argument is, well, obsolete.
And look at what the record companies are trying to do... control the retail price and threaten this new business model by pulling out.
You've voluntarily opted to give up all credibility with this comment. Typical preaching from the top of the mountain bunk.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Are you even employed in an industry which has an employee agreement? If not then you've instantly lost all credibility in this thread.
Even 9-to-5 jobs require an employee agreement and, unless you're financially wealthy enough to be able to afford to turn them down, there's nothing you can do but accept an unfair agreement.
I'm not a bleeding heart for the artists. I do recognize that the media industry, as a general rule, is fleecing the artists blind and deserve none of the protections warranted by a responsible member of society.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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.
Your whole post is no more than a "straw man" style argument in which you misrepresent Slashdot's supposed editorial stands on the various issues presented so that you can more easily attack them. Well, I 'll just make a few points and then leave you to continue your trolling in peace...
d =13592078
"Despite Slashdot calling for the RIAA to go after individual infringers back during the Napster lawsuit, Slashdot has done a 180 and is against that now, using anti-capitalist rhetoric to avoid discussing the issues of music piracy."
The point was that suing and in any way bothering ISPs with these RIAA lawsuits was a bogus approach because ISPs should have "common carrier" status. Just as people can carry out illegal activities on phone lines while the phone companies are held to be legally without liability, so too should it be the case for ISPs who are mere carriers for the information being sent and retrieved by their customers.
No one advocated bogus lawsuits against individuals. No one suggested abuse of process (because this is more a scare campaign than anything else, let's face it). No one supported the RIAA going after people without even the ability to state a valid claim. In this case (the one under discussion) they weren't able to state an actual damage, just the potential of one - and even that might have been based on erroneous information.
Seriously, get your shit together first before coming here to talk utter nonsense.
BTW, you know who cares about Music Piracy? Maybe the RIAA and no one else. Why should our government be wasting resources for the benefit of so few? Why even discuss it? If someone infringes your rights and you can claim a damage - Great! Sue them in court. Leave everyone else alone. The courts are not there for the exclusive use of the RIAA and all of their thousands of bullshit lawsuits.
"This is the kicker. "Average organized crime syndicate" is so blatantly over the top that the obvious intent is to stir the hornet's next of pro-piracy advocates on Slashdot (which has become P2P piracy central in the past couple of years) to generate page hits."
Um...okay. May I ask if you even know what RICO stands for? It's an acronym for: "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." The history of RICO law in the U.S. follows closely with government attempts to squash the activities of organized criminal organizations (i.e. the Mafia, gangs, etc). So yeah, if it happens to be the case that you can hit an organization with a RICO lawsuit chances are at least even money that they are on the same legal footing as mobsters or your "Average organized crime syndicate." And you have a problem with that why? If it's proven out in court, the RIAA will be seen to have been using the courts to pursue an illegal agenda that was abusive of court processes and infringing upon the rights of individuals to boot. I can't condone that.
It seems to me that whomever modded your comment as insightful is as ignorant as you are. Your comments are barely coherent and you appear to be poorly informed.
FWIW, I guess it's kinda cool how I predicted this RICO move a couple of weeks back: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162628&ci
Checkmate.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Ok, here is your new business model: SELL MP3S OVER THE INTERNET!!!!!
There are quite literally millions of people who would buy them. iTunes would have a serious run for its money (at the same pricepoint)for remaining the top site in internet music.
The record companies could do this and they would earn BILLIONS of dollars.
There are millions of people out there who will buy the music. There are millions of file sharers who will actually start buying the music.
All the RIAA needs to be is reasonable, but they're not. All they have to do is make it so easy and reasonably affordable (read same price as iTunes or less) and they can sit back and real in billions of dollars. And there are quite likely millions of people sitting on the sidlines right now, like me, who aren't downloading anything, but also aren't buying CDs.
But they won't do that.....
Hardly.
The linked article (a piece of legitimate journalism) should be unbiased, the headline need not be. Perspective is important as it creates an environment in which intelligent discussion can gestate. Rather than merely squelching what you perceive as bias with a random slew of generalizations, perhaps you should understand the issue at hand:
P2P filesharing. The two stances? Copyright infringement vs. legitimate music acquisition.
Why isn't it a big deal? The smaller labels aren't complaining about filesharing...independent artists aren't complaining...it seems only major labels care. Most artists on those labels make only 7 to 8 points on CD sales anyway, so they don't profit. If music sales decline (and a number of studies have shown that P2P does not harm, and may even boost sales, as shown here, here (PDF), and here, just to name a few) then the artists really don't feel the hurt, as they profit mostly from merchandising and live shows. Both of those require fans. Thus, the more people to hear their music, the more likely they'll sell out a show, or sell more merchandise, and thus profit. This is why more and more artists are endorsing file sharing. If you understand the real issue of corporate control (Infinity, Clearchannel, and Viacom control the vast majority of radio in America, as well as venues, and where I live in Cleveland, Clearchannel owns all of the billboards), then you will notice that a bias here isn't so bad.
Arists need an audience to exist. If they are not on a major label and thus can't get airplay, how can they find an audience? (hint, the answer is filesharing).
Rash generalizations and non-sequitors do little to address the issues and, rather than bias, are what paints Slashdot in a poor light and keeps it from being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy.
You are completely correct... however we get the shaft no matter what we do...
When we don't buy because they are too expensive, and sales inevitably slump, we get blamed for pirating. If we buy their CD's yet don't buy all the crap they shovel out, we get blamed for not buying enough. And of course, they say piracy is at the root. (Their numbers at the RIAA website are very different from their "poor-me" press releases most of the time.) We use iTunes and buy online... they want to raise prices. It is as if the RIAA is never happy.
It's a lose-lose situation. The RIAA will find a way to demonize their base.
That doesn't mean I defend infringement. It just means that not buying to the RIAA _is_ "piracy."
If even the MPAA can realize that crappy movies == fewer ticket sales.... why can't the RIAA stop blaming "pirates" every time their sales dip? They would rather invent a buzzword du-jour to exclaim how they are being robbed of their very shirts by that "evil" internet.
Bah. It's enough to turn your stomach sometimes.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
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.
"Ms. Andersen, You've been living a double life. During the day, you're Ms. Andersen, a humble housewife. But during the night, you are known as gotenkito@kazaa.com, a peer to peer downloader. Only one of these lives, Ms. Andersen, has a future."
:D
Now it makes sense! Ms. Andersen is THE ONE!
Okay, right from the start, the headline is an editorial via the use of the term "victim."
Victim does not imply innocence. If the RIAA sued her, then she is their victim, regardless of whether the RIAA's suit was valid or not.
from the racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations dept.
The RIAA was convicted of price-fixing. Racketeering and corruption are fairly valid adjectives in that context.
This is the kicker. "Average organized crime syndicate" is so blatantly over the top that the obvious intent is to stir the hornet's next of pro-piracy advocates on Slashdot (which has become P2P piracy central in the past couple of years) to generate page hits.
RICO was originally set up to attack organized crime. That's where the parallel to organized crime comes in. Not that the RIAA is putting out hits and charging protection money, but that the laws set up to catch organized crime is catching them too.
The RIAA did what it is legally entitled to do; go after infringers of its copyright that it found on the P2P networks.
Except that it has a history of getting the wrong people with it's scatter-shot lawsuits. If this person turns out to be one of those people, then no, the RIAA is not doing what it is legally entitled to.
No, slashdot isn't POV neutral, but when was the last time you saw a neutral mainstream news report? At least their editorializing is in some sense justifiable.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face