Andersen Vs. RIAA Counterclaims Challenged

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is now challenging the counterclaims (PDF) in Atlantic v. Andersen, for Electronic Trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Invasion of Privacy, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, the tort of Outrage, Deceptive Business Practices under Oregon Trade Practices Act, and Oregon RICO, first discussed here in October 2005. The RIAA has moved to dismiss the counterclaims (PDF) brought by a disabled single mother in Oregon who lives on Social Security Disability and has never engaged in file sharing, this after unsuccessfully trying to force the face-to-face deposition of Ms. Andersen's 10-year-old daughter. Ms. Andersen's lawyer has filed opposition papers (PDF)."

Comments

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

With all due respect to NYCL, why is this front-page news? Do we really need to hear about every stupid law-and-motion issue that arises in one of these cases? Significant judgments, OK. Landmark rulings, fine. But a fucking motion? Last week I swear there was a "story" about a routine DISCOVERY order. . .

Re:Why?

[NeoPaladin394]

These things are front page news because they have the potential to define the future for media and, more importantly, technology related to the internet. These RIAA actions can and probably will have a very big impact on exactly how data can be accessed across networks, draw lines in fair use, define or rewrite copyright as it pertains to electronic media, and maybe even have internet laws written/rewritten as a byproduct. DRM, anyone? I find many of the big stories have little nuances that may very well effect different segments of the above mentioned.

News for nerds. Stuff that matters.

Besides: If you're not interested, it's as simple as not clicking on the article.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is every procedural hiccup in these cases "newsworthy"?

For one thing, not every case the RIAA is pursuing is being covered here. While I can not authoratively state that every motion in this case is being reported here, I would highly suspect that is the case, however every motion filed in a lawsuit is important, though to varying degrees and those degrees sometimes not known till the outcome of the case. Though this is not to say that an important motion won't be ignored or tossed out by the judge or prejudicially ignored or overenhanced in importance by a jury. Its a lawyers job to get such assessments to have a lean towards their clients case.

In this case the RIAA is being accused of breaking the law and violation of the defendant's rights. THIS is very important to everyone because it is likely that the RIAA has used similar procedures in acquiring their "evidence" against other reputed violator's of copyright that they are pursuing cases against. If the RIAA is found to be liable in these instances the judge in the case may well refer to the state prosecutor for criminal charges. If the case makes it into the news enough the citizens of the state may well demand criminal charges against the RIAA. For that matter the state attorney general may decide to pursue it without a public outcry.

Personally, I would love to see a point by point breakdown of the charges against the RIAA in this case discussed here. A collection of the most valid points of each could be accumulated into an article worth of posting on a targeted website and/or forwarded to the news media that would get such information wider dispersal in the media would be nice too. People need to know what the RIAA is up to and how the government has been supporting them in their activities. It could also provide Slashdotters with ammo to fire letters off to their politicians.

It would be nice if people would realize that the justice system works best if kept in a free and open manner. Much like software, the greater number of eyes watching it the better, of course all the eyes can turn into a lynchmob.

Re:Why?

[MrMista_B]

Uh, "Very specific type of nerd?"

When has that *ever* been true?

Or, by 'nerd', do you mean people like you?

You seem to be acting like the sort of people nerds commonly accuse of oppresing them.

RIAA says, "Mission Accomplished!"

[asphaltjesus]

The summary is exactly what the media conglomerates want burned into every American consumers brain.

Fear anything that is not authorized or offered to you by the media conglomerates.

Consider Your Music Library

[mfh]

If you don't have more indy bands, go get their stuff!! Pay artists directly!
Why support RIAA by buying their music, when they are using YOUR MONEY in a way that is morally wrong?

Because I'm Evil

[wiredog]

And lazy.

Re:Say what?

[TubeSteak]

Oh, it gets explained further on.
Here's a pic of the explanation:
http://i17.tinypic.com/352g7jp.jpg

Claiming that sniffing around the P2P network by a non-legit peer is somehow an action that requires consent... I'm not buying it. Especially not the concept that it's illegal pretexting.

Further, if Ms. Andersen never had Kazaa installed,
how could MediaSentry have trespassed upon her computer?

Or is there some fine legal point which allows one to sue for something that (according to Ms Andersen) could never have happened?

Re:thinkofthechildren

[Rob the Bold]

Also, minors can be found liable for copyright infringement. There's nothing special about them in that regard either.

How about having no money? "Blood from a stone (or turnip)" and all that?

But kidding aside, I can't see why a child could be liable for laws they have no say in. I'm sure there's a legally great reason, but not a morally good one.

The luckiest of all is the child who was never born.

Re:Legal or Illegal?

[badfrogw00tz]

Copyright infringement is *not* a criminal offense. Your analogy is flawed.

Re:Because.

[SillySlashdotName]

...and offer 95% illegal material...

The site was not offering anything illegal, nor were they providing anything illegal.

Where they are(were?) located what they were doing WAS NOT ILLEGAL.

They had ALL THE MORAL GROUND there is, what ground did the *iaa have to persecute them ILLEGALLY?

The RIAA demonstrated they know little about how bitTorrent works.

Re:thinkofthechildren

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm not sure the GP poster was arguing about the legal status, but rather the ethical one.

On the one hand, someone too young to understand that something is wrong and the negative consequences of doing it clearly should not be punished for their actions. On the other hand, the older person responsible for them who does understand should not be giving them the freedom to do damaging things. If, as a result of the responsible adult's negligence, a child causes harm to someone else, then while the responsible adult isn't guilty of causing the damage, I think it is ethical to expect them to offer fair compensation.

I will now add two caveats to the above.

Firstly, I think the age of "innocence" is vastly exaggerated in many western societies. I have seen kids hanging around by the cars outside my home, deliberately damaging them, and when confronted by an adult, one of them shouting, "I'm under 10, I can't commit a crime!" It may or may not be appropriate to fine the kid £500 for a respray of the side panel of the car he damaged, but he knew damn well that he was doing something wrong and it's certainly reasonable to deny him privileges for a few days so he gets the point that his behaviour was unacceptable.

Secondly, yes, sometimes damage will be done and it's not really fair to blame anyone. Kids are kids, and if an adult responsible for them took reasonable steps to control them and a genuine accident happens, that's life. In a socialist society, the answer to this is state compensation; in a capitalist society, it is private insurance. Not all ambulances should be chased by a predatory lawyer.