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!
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
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?
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.
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?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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.
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.
Hopefully they don't stop gnawing until well past the head.
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
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
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. =====
"We have been watching you for some time, Ms. Anderson"