Slashdot Mirror
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)."
If she doesn't allow her daughter to give a deposition, she'll face another charge but if she exposes her daughter to lawyers, she'll definitely face negligence charges!
It will be interesting to see how much of its leg must be knawed off.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
The "Tort of Outrage" would be a great name for a band.
I am not a crackpot.
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?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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.
This will affect everyone in the United States, even you. If you don't live in the US, I'd still be worried if I were you. We've all seen how the US "exports" it's policies (Pirate Bay, anyone?).
In some ways this is a simple case of stopping the idiocy now.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
This should be filed under the DUH tag.
If someone accuses you in civil court and you stand to lose more from the judgment than you would from the defense, you defend yourself.
I dont know anyone who would do any different.
what is important is what is yet to come, the result of the counterclaim case. That will be newsworthy either way.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
As I understand it, the RIAA ADMITS to having entered Ms.Andersen's computer without her consent. Is this not a criminal offense? Has a criminal complaint been brought?
If not, and Ms. Andersen had reached a settlement, wouldn't it have been in bad faith, since the Settlement Support Center knowingly lied to her?
I guess my real question is: how much of the quoted material is lawerly hyperbole and how much is based on actual facts.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
You missed the point entirely. I'm not disputing the importance of the RIAA actions generally, but this particular story is pretty much about NOTHING (dressed up with some sensationalism about single mothers and the like). Nothing has been decided by any judge or jury. One side filed a tactical motion in an ongoing lawsuit, and the motion hasn't even been fully briefed yet (much less ruled upon). Is every procedural hiccup in these cases "newsworthy"?
And lazy.
Best Slashdot Co
Really. I can accept making a 10 year old testify as a witness in a murder case, to prevent the killer from striking again. But in a civil copyright case, in which she, as a minor, is not even accountable? Give me a break! The lawyers and executives involved should be charged with attempted harm to a minor.
So, was the seven year old girl (at the time) doing legal activities... or rather, are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA :P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?
I fully realize that's an outrageous comparison. But a few things strike me as seeming to go unnoticed in most of the "RIAA is the devil incarnate!" discussions.
I just read some sad news at the Register. Anonymous Coward, long-time Slashdot poster, has passed away at the tender age of 15 from RSI. He was undoubtedly the most prolific poster on Slashdot by a wide margin, a record which will no doubt live on into eternity. Even if you didn't appreciate his endless posts, flames, frist prosts and wide range of viewpoints, there's no denying his contributions to the Slashdot comment sections. Truly an internet icon.
This is Slashdot and it's about the RIAA! Duh!
So you consider requiring a high school student to give a deposition with less than 24 hours notice - and on a school day, no less - a "routine DISCOVERY order?"
Slashdot may be giving a lot of attention to these stories, but the corporate media is virtually ignoring them, or presenting them from the point of view of the recording industry. If you think the RIAA challenging the counter-claim is not news, fine. That doesn't mean the rest of us are not interested.
Why is it people feel they need to complain when a story they don't think is "worthy" appears on Slashdot? Are you paying by the bit or what? I scroll past plenty of articles I am not interested in. Sometimes, I even visit other sites.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Barratry is a criminal offense in California.
From the California Penal Code:
158. Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000).
159. No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy.
Barratry prosecutions are almost unheard of, but there was one in 1988 in California and it was affirmed by an appeals court. The RIAA's activities seem to qualify. "Exciting groundless judicial proceedings" - check. "At least three instances" - check. "Corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy" - requires proving intent, and in this last case, that can probably be shown.
it's as simple as not clicking on the article.
Most Slashdotters don't have any trouble not clicking on the articles.
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.
Seriously. It's already been brought up many times that finally, here's someone who's taking a stand and counter-suing the RIAA.
What did you expect the RIAA to do? Roll up in court and say to the judge "Actually, your honour, they're quite right, we're a bunch of misguided nutcases"?
Of course they're going to challenge the counterclaim - and they'll challenge it with everything they can think of because if they lose, suddenly there will be substantially more lawyers prepared to take on defense cases at a very good price (plus a percentage of any winnings in a counterclaim) in their next round of suing people.
Because 'news for nerds' had a very specific type of nerd in mind and that has evolved into 'news for whatever as long as someone is nerdy about it'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Excellent idea! Throw the entire Association in the county jail!
Astounding!
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
*sigh* such is the state of the internet, i suppose.
A second reason that it is important is that Ms. Andersen was the first person to seriously interpose aggressive counterclaims against the RIAA based on the RIAA's own misconduct.
If Tanya Andersen wins this round, the RIAA will be on the defensive all across the country.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I seem to remember there being some rules that basically prohibited spouses from being required to testify against one another (although they could so voluntarily). That might be a local one (Canadian) though, but I though the US had something similar.
If such rules exist, then I would imagine that a similar protection might exist for young children in that the should not be compelled to bear witness against their parents/guardians. This would be especially important and it would be rather emotionally traumatizing for a child, and as it stands lawyers are good enough at manipulating words to dance legal circles around confused adult witnesses, let along children.
Copyright is acceptable- going after people through the net is not. Users have an expectation of privacy (most users think they are anonymous, and are/can be for the most part) and the law should recognize the complexity of the internet and networks because they are going on a wild goose chase anytime they go after somebody based on an IP address.
The US government even had credit card records in the largest criminal case against child porn users in the US and were unable to identify users. Of the 35,000 people who were attacked many committed suicide and a mere 100 were prosecuted. Clearly the internet does not provide enough to justify probable cause let alone evidence of a crime.
You're the type of nerd who takes his date to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and then mutters, "Guys, it's not that funny," when my group can't stop laughing at how Splinter looks like Chester the Cheetah and talks in a horrible Chinese accent.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
"What's needed is an independant[sic] review committee made up of non-lawyer citizens to review the actions of both Judges and Lawyers."
You mean like "voters"? That has worked _so_ well thus far.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
How is her condition relevant to the case?
She claims her disabling medical condition was worsened by the stress imposed due to the illegal actions of the RIAA's agents. As a result, rather than being able to return to work she is now worse off physically than before.
This is central to the amount of the damage awards she is seeking. Also, in at least one of her claims the dollar value of the amount of damage sought must pass a threshold for that type of claim to be litigated.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I think you are a troll Mr. Coward. Obviously it's relevant to the counterclaims for extortionate and deceptive practices.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What seems to be going on here is that the lawyer is taking the RIAA at their word and leveling the charge based on what the RIAA -- or rather, the Settlement Support Center acting as their agent -- actually said. They claimed to have "seen" her downloading and "knew" the files were on her computer. Really? Well, how did they know that? MediaSentry has never disclosed their methods of information gathering, so there's no information coming from that quarter. They must have broken into her home computer to obtain those sorts of files, right?
This puts the RIAA between a rock and a hard place. Either they can admit that they broke into her home computer, or they can admit that they were lying about that bit. Of course, if they admit they never really had any evidence in the first place, that strengthens the other claims against them.
No wonder they want the counterclaim dismissed.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
RIAA and MPAA are the teeth of the members. Why let them hide behind these fronts? It appears the major labels supporting RIAA are EMI, Sony BMG, Universal, and Warner. They understand money, and being deprived of it.
The chance of the RIAA being tried for anything (let alone in barratry) in California is about zero.
They own (through their membership) most of LA and a good chunk of southern California.
Thank you, multisync.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Because it's in Oregon. He just discovered it is a neat and groovy place and is even part of the US. He just wanted to share.
NB: A trick question. In what country is "New Mexico"?
They own (through their membership) most of LA and a good chunk of southern California.
The movie industry is big, but the music industry isn't. Total US music industry sales are around $10 billion a year, and dropping, or so says the RIAA. Google, Microsoft, Apple, HP, and IBM each generate more revenue, and far more profits, than the entire music industry. The music industry doesn't employ many people, unlike the movie industry, so the employee votes aren't there.
Dear Mr. President. There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
I am not a crackpot.
I was lumping the RIAA together with the entertainment industry. They would stand up for one another in any court case.
My point is the very small likelihood of prosecuting a portion of the entertainment industry in a Californian court.
This is front page news because RIAA is being sued for what they are; criminals, rackateers and thugs. They need to be taken to the cleaners, hung out to dry, and sent swimming with the fishes.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
The case of Randal Schwartz is directly applicable to this case:
http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/
- in Oregon - Trespass of Chattels was directly considered.
The MPAA discussion of the first counterclaim, "Electronic Trespass", refers to such Trespass.
True: Schwartz was prosecuted on criminal charges, while these are civil claims.
I cannot say anything about the correctness of the claim, but the applicability of "trespass" to the circumstances seems relevant. The MPAA makes some of the same claims that Schwartz did. They were shot down for him, though.
"We have been watching you for some time, Ms. Anderson"
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
For damages I can see its relevance, if it has impacted her emotionally or aggrevated her condition. But I don't believe that the RIAA has committed *additional* extortion simply because of the defendent's disability - unless of course, they used it as leverage to try to force her to settle.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
I would also say, if you wish to buy a RIAA-released album, buy it second hand from ebay or any number of S/H stores. It does depend upon someone buying the album new, of course, but it'll always happen. Second hand CDs are cheaper, the RIAA gets exactly $0 and S/H stores also tend to have stuff that stores selling new CDs don't.
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
"My understanding is that the RIAA simply tracks IP addresses and then sues whoever was using the address at that time"
And of course there is no way to mimic/spoof an IP address? My problem is the RIAA does not appear to always perform what is called "due diligence" in the legal world before suing. I may be wrong, I have been before and will be again...but, it seems to me that there are way too many cases where they have made huge assumptions and sued people based on those assumptions. They may also be violating the law in pursuing their agenda, in some cases. There are clouds that obscure facts sometimes. I would never sue someone without evaporating those clouds and being 100% sure of my facts. They only do so, in my opinion, because they have lawyers on retainer and in their employ and can afford to sue everyone they wish. They don't appear to care if they happen to pull in some innocents along the way.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
This puts the RIAA between a rock and a hard place. Either they can admit that they broke into her home computer, or they can admit that they were lying about that bit. Of course, if they admit they never really had any evidence in the first place, that strengthens the other claims against them.
Also known as "giving the RIAA enough rope to hang themselves".
No wonder they want the counterclaim dismissed.
It appears to be the case that the RIAA dosn't want cases to actually go to court even when they are simply the plaintiff. Here they have effectivly ended up as the defendent in a case where a judge is quite likely to "throw the book at them".
My problem is the RIAA does not appear to always perform what is called "due diligence" in the legal world before suing. I may be wrong, I have been before and will be again...but, it seems to me that there are way too many cases where they have made huge assumptions and sued people based on those assumptions.
Effectivly what they are doing is using litigation or more likely the threat of litigation in order to extort money from people.
They may also be violating the law in pursuing their agenda, in some cases.
If they are actually suing people then in could be "Barratry". If they are just making threats to sue then they probably are just being annoying.
I'd like to use this opportunity to show my sincere appreciation for what you are doing. Although many a joke has been made about lawyers and humans, and especially them not being the same thing, it gives me hope that there obviously are lawyers who take law seriously and do have people's well-being in mind.
On top of that you take the time to inform and update us on the state of affairs with an insight that we'd otherwise sorely lack.
I do believe that you are one of those people who will have an actual positive impact on society. And for that, I'm very grateful.
Thank you, Kokuyo.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
You there! Cake or death?!
Programmer: an ingenious device that converts caffeine into code.