Slashdot Mirror
RIAA, Safenet Sued For Malicious Prosecution
DaveAtFraud writes "Tanya Anderson, the single mother from Oregon previously sued by the RIAA — which dropped the case just before losing a summary judgement — is now suing the RIAA and their hired snoop Safenet for malicious prosecution. (Safenet was formerly known as MediaSentry.) Anderson is asserting claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. A reader at Groklaw has already picked up that she is seeking to have the RIAA forfeit the copyrights in question as part of the settlement (search the page for '18.6-7')."
Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country?
at least not on the music.. Perhaps we should stop playing their game and NAME THE MUSIC COMPANIES who are suing these people.
How we know is more important than what we know.
What really needs to happen is to get a couple of the hawkish Attourny Generals, like NY's, involved and looking into the RIAA's actions. They, actually, have some power to do something about the RIAA's tactics.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought the RICO act into this. It's what finally stopped DirecTV from suing everyone that bought a Smartcard reader.
Im sure noone else will defend the RIAA here, so I may as well be the one to point out the obvious.
From what I understand here the RIAA didnt really want to bankrupt this woman. They really just wanted to assert their IP rights, they typically dont want whatever money would be awarded from a trial against some random individual. The cost of running this whole operation dramatically exceeds whatever they could make in settlements and verdicts. They arent doing it to extort as some claim, they are doing it to deter people from copying their stuff. They dont need the publicity of forcing a woman and her kid to be homeless. Despite what groklaw may say they arent going after people that they dont have fairly good cases against. (and you know perfectly well there are tons of people who they can make good cases against)
This woman should just leave it alone, she already caught a break with the charges being dropped.
The article reads the RIAA would lose the rights, not the copyrights.
Perhaps this is a tactic to force a settlement, since every one of their tactics would be placed before a jury, in an atmosphere where they could hardly be despised more. I doubt the RIAA could actually lose the copyrights since I doubt they own them in the first place, but it would be interesting if she expanded the suit to include the owners on whose behalf the RIAA operates. All I know is, if I'm a juror, those copyrights are G-O-N-E. How willing is the RIAA to take the chance that a juror who decides against them won't be persuasive enough with 8 of 11 other peers? (I presume it's a civil suit)
Just because he holds a different opinion doesn't mean he is "trolling" or trying to "bait" people into a flame war.
Can't you can disagree with someone without trying to supress their opinion?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Is there any place I can donate to her legal expenses? I have already googled for such a site, no luck. A lot of people will benefit from this decision, at least we could contribute a small amount.
As many have already said this will be very expensive. What if the idea is to start the suit with lots of publicity and then get others to join and gain class action status? The more that the tactics get exposed to the public the better chance of an outcry getting relief for everyone. It really boils down to a publicity fight. If people believe that the RIAA is defending artists they like then the real issues won't matter. Convince them that making a mix tape of any music might get you prosecuted and things change. Education of the masses is the only way to solve the problem.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I completely DISAGREE 100% with the OP, however parent is spot on for wanting him to be modded up. He is clear and concise with his points and he deserves mod points regardless of the rarity of his opinions in this forum.
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
...that they don't lose this case. Having it on record as being successfully prosecuted under RICO would solidify and make official their reputation as a criminal organisation.
It would also be a major victory for piracy in general, because it would mean that if the RIAA want to call pirates criminals, the playing field would then be level...which would also make the RIAA hypocrites.
The RIAA has gone after all kinds of people, dead and alive, using techniques that simply border on unethical. Corporate bullying, in some cases. In addition, copyright infringement isn't theft. It may be a crime, but it is not the same thing as physical theft-the RIAA always claims it is.
I think I would have modded you troll or overrated if I had mod points based on your original comment.
There may be something positive to say about the RIAA, but this particular subject isn't one of them. Oh, and neither are their efforts to attempt to deep-six internet radio, and then there is the DMCA...yeah, the RIAA doesn't have a lot of good karma, IMHO.
Just because you get modded "insightful" on Slashdot doesn't mean you actually are in real life.
I just read through the filing. The RIAA is in big trouble here.
Most of the facts in the case have already been litigated, and the RIAA lost. The counterclaims arise from facts already on the record. The RIAA's actions are a matter of public record. And they did a whole range of things ranging from really dumb to possibly criminal.
First, their investigation unit, SafeNet/MediaSentry, isn't a licensed private investigator. So they don't have any of the immunities a private investigator does. Normally, law firms use licensed private investigators for their investigations, but the RIAA didn't bother. Bad move.
Second, there's a clear case for fraudulent debt collection. It's already been established in court that the RIAA's claims were false, and that they knew they were false, yet they continued collection efforts.
On the harassment front, the RIAA's representatives apparently attempted to contact a 10 year old child's elementary school under false pretenses, pretending to be a grandparent. The court had to issue a protective order prohibiting the RIAA from contacting the kid. That's going to be tough to explain to a jury.
There's more, but the RIAA is going to have a very tough time in court on this one.
Who predicted, when the RIAA began their lawsuit strategy, predicted that it would backfire in the long run? Please reference your previous slashdot posts as evidence.
All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
"She's not going after RIAA as such, she's going after everyone that makes up the RIAA, read the article: "Atlantic, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG and BMG -- the RIAA itself, the Settlement Support Center, and SafeNet"
Read the article, as well as the PDF linked from Groklaw, specifically the first page where it lists the plaintiff and defendents. She's suing the RIAA *and* the record companies involved.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
... unless Copyright Abuse was one of the charges, I fail to see how it would be usual to forfeit copyrights.
Given that Count 13 IS "Misuse of Copyright Laws" and, in that count, paragraph 18.6 claims "Such actions constitute a misuse of copyrights, and lead to a forfeiture of the exclusive rights granted to defendants by these laws." I'd say the conditions you ask for are met.
"Who shall watch the watchers?" is a problem posed millennia ago. In the case of police violating the fourth and fifth amendments, the answer the courts found was: "If you cops/prosecutors break the law in collecting evidence for a case, all that evidence - and all evidence collected as a result of it - is thrown out. Keep YOUR act clean or you lose the case."
Similarly congress has said: "Copyright gives you certain exclusive rights for a (long) time. It's hard to play 'whack a mole' with all the infringers, so we're giving you draconian penalties to make an example of those you do catch, to make examples of them and scare off others. If you misuse these rights, you lose them - not just for THAT case, but FOREVER."
If the court rules "You misuse the copyrights, you lose the copyrights" it will, IMHO, be correctly interpreting the law. Setting up a situation where the RIAA and its members get judgments when they go after a real copyright violator but lose the copyright on the songs involved if they maliciously or negligently prosecute an innocent non-violator would create a DANDY incentive for the RIAA to abandon its reign of terror and do their best to be squeaky-clean on any cases they pursue.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why wasn't Doug Jacobsen listed as a defendant? He was the computer "expert" behind media sentry's bull**t testimony.
I should really take more breaks from looking at the monitor, I read the title as " RIAA, Safenet Sued For Malicious Prostitution"
Alternatively: Hitler. :)
Easy solution: sneaker net. Sneaker net may have been floppies in the old day.. but now people have CDs, DVDs, usb keys that can hold up to 10GB, external harddrives, and even freaking laptops. Sneaker net, it's the only way to share things.
Thankfully, people tend to interpret legal terms the way the law does, not the way you do -- this is a good thing, as you obviously have no clue as to what the hell you're talking about. Here's how the 8th edition of Black's Law Dictionary defines extortion (quotes removed for the sake of my tired, tired hands):
extortion, n. 1. The offense committed by a public official who illegally obtains property under the color of office; esp., an official's collection of an unlawful fee. 2. The act or practice of obtaining something or compelling some action by illegal means, as by force or coercion.
There is absolutely no chance the RIAA is making any money with all the legal fees they are spending here. Typically they ask people to settle for very small amounts. Lawyers cost hundreds of thousands or even millions just to hire a few.
Got any numbers you can cite? Any references at all to back up your supposed knowledge of the RIAA's legal expenses and profits? Or are you just making stuff up? Put up or shut up.
Elizabeth Lochley: "I've just decided that if you can't join them, beat them."
From "Strange Relations," Season 5
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
I hope to God the lady suing the RIAA wins. If she doesn't, it could set a precedent that would further allow these clearly abusive practices.
If you are going to sue people, especially on the scale that the RIAA is doing, Plaintiffs should not be allowed to drop a suit whenever they feel that it looks as if they may lose a judgement. This just allows Plaintiffs to file hundreds of thousands of suits, and then drop suits if it looks as if the judgment isn't going to go their way, with nothing more than a "We changed our mind.", leaving the defendant high and dry.
If you file a suit, then you should stick with it. You shouldn't be able to file a suit and then drop it right before the judgment if it looks as if it won't be in your favor, so as to absolve you of the defendant's legal costs.
Think of it this way:
You aren't allowed to place a million-dollar bet in a poker game, and then withdraw at the last minute it when you see that you were dealt a pretty bad hand. Such as it should be with lawsuits: If you are going to sue someone, you better be sure of what you are doing, because you can't change your mind when the outlook turns unfavorable.
If you sue someone, and you are not expecting to win, then you should be every bit liable for the other person's legal fees, and jailed if it is clear that you dropped your suit because you didn't like the outlook.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Let's see... Dia- is a prefix meaning through or across. These lawsuits go through or across the RIAA. Sounds like DiaRIAA should be the term used to describe their attacks on people. :P
...on how you word your statement. If it had been super aggressive (such as: "the RIAA is correct, and consumers are fucking stupid"), I would have modded you down immediately. However, in the context of the point you are trying to convey-a dissenting opinion, I don't think I would have taken you below "1", just because you are trying to come across as not just an RIAA shill. Now if you had made a pro-RIAA statement, and actually cited a bunch of supporting arguments in the form of hyperlinks and quotes (with the original posting), then it's no longer just trying to make a simple statement and the thought of modding you down would have never crossed my mind-not that I had any mod points to begin with of course.
As someone else pointed out, it's better to try to educate someone, than to immediately assume they are just wrong.
That being said, mod points can be emotional in nature...which is just a side effect of having them. Maybe this is a good example of that. As a general rule, to avoid being tagged as a troll/overrated, making statements that show some thinking involved is the best defense.
Note-I do not download songs via P2P, I buy used CD's from Amazon and such, so while I have no sympathy for the RIAA, AFAIK, I also do not put myself at high risk. I get my MP3's via NNTP and a few internet-based vendors, but not iTunes...yet.
Just because you get modded "insightful" on Slashdot doesn't mean you actually are in real life.
This got modded to +5 Insightful? I knew it was a problem (see my sig), but seriously, this guy called us moderates "corporo-fascist trolls" for crying out loud. And here's me thinking that trolls were people who deliberately blocked discussion, or expressed their opinions in an inflammatory way (e.g. the parent post), not people who legitimately disagree with the person's viewpoint.
For shame, Slashdot, for shame.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Please don't humanize the morons around me. It makes me very uncomfortable.
After reading through a lot of these comments here you get people who are attempting to "defend" the RIAA actions, whilst i am not a citizen of the USA. From previous threads and many MANY articles read on these copyright suits, it does seem pretty evident that what the RIAA are doing is 'shady'. Now that a offensive is being taken to there camp, There are still people who for their own reasons discourage taking the 'fight' to the RIAA.
Now for the purpose of my $0.02. . . get your Tin Hats Ready
The RIAA who do not seem to embrace a newer distribution model for music ( for their own reasons) seem not to be technophobic, evident by utilizing companies such as SafeNet. Is it not possible they employ a similar method in attempting to shape forums which are appear to not work in their favour ( pay people to put a certain view on a high traffic sitelike digg or Slashdot).
I guess that while you never really know who posted the comment you need to consider their bias. . . . .
what is my bias, Not particularly fond of the RIAA not anti them either, however i find what they seem to be doing of late ethically questionable to the point where when purchasing music if i see they have anything to do with my music purchase i avoid it. I guess i vote with my wallet . . . . . .
That hurts. There are more criminals, not fewer, and they all need punishment.
Maybe just automatically give the same punishment. If that means the cop rots in jail, oh well...
n/t
Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
--Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
Holy crap, if you haven't read the claim, take the time. I can see why they are using racketeering as a pretense to sue. I can't believe all the RIAA did to this lady. Click here to read it - Pike and Fischer Internet Law and Regulation
If this woman's case makes a difference, it's not the RIAA executives who'll pay the price. It'd be the people who'd be looking for a job who would be inconvenienced.
Not to mention the musicians whose copyrights may be voided. What specific artists are involved? Are they all willing partners to this case, or have the labels taken that out of their hands?
There are differences of opinion, but there are also posts that are inflammatory.
Now, given that someone was dragged to court, despite the evidence saying that said person was innocent of all wrongdoing, and the case was pushed, in the hope that they'd run out of money and fold..
Given also that rather than face a judgement against them that would set a precedent that they were dead in the wrong, the RIAA just drop the case, and walk away with the premise that there's no comeback at all.
The GP poster just says effectively "She got away lightly", despite having to fork out legal fees.
That is a highly inflammatory remark to make. The defendant did NOT get away lightly. She was harassed, threatened, and abused. By all measures, it is quite possible that the RIAA will be found guilty of extortion in this case (not all, by any means, but a strong possibility in this, as discovery has already uncovered a lot of illegal processes performed by the RIAA and their agents).
Modding the GP poster as a 'Troll' in this case would probably be better served by a 'Flamebait'. Whether by lack of understanding of the issues, or a deliberately crafted attempt, it serves the purpose of largely being both wrong in the detail (though there are mitigating parts, such as mentioning that not all cases are wrongly brought; the GP just doesn't follow through the logical progression and admit that this case WAS wrongly brought and prosecuted, thus bringing it into the realms of extortion. They merely say that some cases were correctly brought, thus all cases are warranted, which is NOT correct) and in the conclusion.
Now, modding up says that a post is insightful, informative, or similar. Given that the post uses spurious logic (taking a false premise, and building a logical chain of sorts on top of a false premise; in this case that given one case is valid, all cases are therefore valid) AND presents the resulting conclusion in a manner that can be deemed inflammatory (an innocent person harassed and hauled through the courts with the aim of wrongfully obtaining money is deemed to have got off lightly when charges are dropped), modding the post up as insightful OR informative is just plain wrong; it is plainly neither.
I'm all for debate; There are posts on here that I vehemently disagree with, but as they're presented with a rationale that fits facts, I concede they have a point, and have to re-think my own opinion. Sometimes the facts support many opinions. And that's ok.
However, when the opinion does not fit the facts, it is wrong (and thus can't be either informative, or insightful).
Presenting the falsehood in an offhanded, condescending fashion is, like it or not, either flamebait, or plain trolling (attempting to derail incisive discussion by presenting falsehood likely to produce a vehemently emotional response rather than an educated an well thought out one).
Good to see Uncle Rico come out to play finally.
I wonder if the RIAA can throw a football over a mountain?
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Could they not just open shop somewhere else with another name in case they lost this one, and
come back yet again to haunt us in our sleep???
site unreachable...
No shit. This is meant to be. Bye bye MAFIAA.
From what I have learned from PJ @ Groklaw, lamlaw.com, & law.com, it's actually fairly common practice to open the fight with cluster bombs & see who flinches at what. Once you have that, you start applying the shotgun to the sticking points until you see an opening. That's when you pull out the rifle & start taking ranging shots.
The reasoning for this is that the judge will limit what & how many times you can bring new things into the case. By filing for the civil proceedings under the RICO & CF&A acts along with malicious proscecution and the other assorted goodies, she can use them all. If however, her lawyer waited until discovery to file the RICO & CF&A complaints, it's quite likely that the judge would not permit them under the grounds that the information required to file for them was available prior to launching the case & they failed to do so in a timely manner. Thus the cluster bomb approach - cover everything at one go & see where it seems to have left a mark.
Once you've posted all of your initial claims, you'll see that some don't survive the initial discovery & review period - that's good because now you have fewer more focused claims & you can start really doing the work. "Oh look, the Atlantic CEO flinched in his deposition when we asked about claim 5, let's bury them in discovery work on 5 & see why." This is the shotgun period.
Once discovery is winding down, you pull out the rifle & start taking ranging shots at the expert opinions. If you're lucky, you can take one out. If not, you've still put a few holes in them & you know where the weak spots are.
Trial is where the actual snipers duel it out. They both know roughly where the other one is & they both know the terrain, it's just a test to see who can do the most damage before the the other one gets enough advantage to take them out.
Holy crap, if you haven't read the claim, take the time. I can see why they are using racketeering as a pretense to sue. I can't believe all the RIAA did to this lady. Click here to read it - Pike and Fischer Internet Law and Regulation
Neither the summary nor any news story I've read so far does it justice. I agree with the comment above: RIAA and the other co-defendants are in very serious trouble. They have screwed up big time, and not just with Ms. Andersen.
Kythe
The sick mom, the scared little child, the stealing of information from her computer, etc are methods to appeal to a jury.
The case will come down to a few technical matters that will have to be decided (I am thinking like a technical person, not a lawyer)
1) Was the IP address that Media Sentry reports to have actually assigned to a computer account that she paid for. Who determines the accuracy? I have no idea. I guess the ISP providing logs. Of course, this does not mean she is guilty even if it was her computer account. I can let someone use my computer and I am not automatically liable for their actions. Think about lending a car to your friend. If they get in an accident, it is not automatically your fault or liability. They may have been drunk, they may not have a license etc so the result would still have to be determined by a court or jury.
2) Is a screen shot or a text list of files sufficient evidence to ensure that the files with those names are actually a copy of a copyrighted song? I've heard stories about people poisoning files sharing networks with bogus files and I've also heard about many people downloading bogus files as well. A screen shot showing a file name "Metallica_Ride_the_lightning.mp3" does not seem like enough evidence for Lars get $150K from someone. I would think that you would actually have to download the file from someone in its entirety (and only from that person) in a traceable manner and inspect the file. Clicking on the icon and it showing up in your download directory should not be sufficient for Media Sentry to supply as evidence. Anyone in the world including Media Sentry could claim they actually downloaded the file. Oh please judge, trust us.
So, it comes down to who and what. From what I've read, the RIAA rackets evidence *should* not stand up in court. On that note, the RIAA is powerful and they bring to the plate that users downloading and distributing files is hurting their business. You can NOT underestimate that power. For a judge to make a ruling for a single individual that would undermine the RIAAs powerhouse operation and plan would be a HUGE thing and have HUGE implications that would be heard throughout the world and even provoke members of congress to get involved. I don't agree with that but in reality, I feel it would be that way.
I do not trust that real evidence will matter in this case. I think it will come down to the RIAA trying to protect what they want, will overpower the decision making process.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
but any silliness about "giving up copyright" is going to doom it.
she should just plain flat out stick with the illegal detainer, malicious prosecution, and corrupt organization charges and press for fines equal to all that has been spent on these evil tactics. and a permanent restraining order prohibiting the nonsense that the riaa and its spies/lies surrogate have been doing.
jail time is worth asking for, although it won't happen.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I should have added a number 6:
Andersen's counterclaims (now, simply, "claims") say that RIAA and its associates are engaged in racketeering. In other words, a violation of RICO laws.
At any rate, we're well past concerns of whether Andersen was guilty of copyright violations. That's been decided. Andersen has now filed suit, and it's all about RIAAs (and its associates') allegedly illegal behavior.
Kythe
OK, since you and a few others are claiming that I am factually incorrect I will respond and ask how. They had her IP address didnt they? Thats an honest question, I cant imagine they went after her without an IP address. And please dont respond with some discussion about dynamic IP addresses and so forth, I mean the IP address that was assigned to her at the time they found shared files. If they didnt have an IP address or some other way to identify her how on earth did they find her?
Just because nothing was found on the computer doesnt mean she is innocent, it isnt hard to completely remove some files from a computer. Logically, their presence may prove guilt but their absence proves nothing. As long as they found her IP address sharing copyrighted material I dont see what the problem is. If they couldnt get enough evidence on top of that to get a guilty verdict that doesnt necessarily mean that suit was motivated by malicous reasons. I mean come on, it costs WAY more than 4000 dollars to go through with a lawsuit like this, if she was innocent they would have no logical reason to pursue it.
Do you really believe that they were sueing her just to be dicks? It makes no sense.
I have a very cynical reaction to cries of "person XYZ was sued by the RIAA and is innocent". I mean, its so easy to find people who are guilty that it just seems ridiculous that they would go after someone who has done nothing in spite of all the costs involved. Also you hear a lot of arguments about how "screenshots can be faked!" and so forth that dont necessarily hold water. Anything can be faked, pictures can be too and are often used as evidence. If you have someone who is sitting there saying they took the screenshot/picture thats as good as eyewitness testimony. Probably even better since you have a picture of what they saw instead of just a fuzzy memory.
All that being said, if she actually is innocent I hope she wins, but I doubt that is the case and if it is she is a very small minority among the people getting sued.
They were told by the ISP that she was the owner of the internet access account that had been assigned that dynamic IP address as of a certain date and time. There are at least 20 explanations that I can think of -- and I am neither a techie nor an imaginative person -- for how that can have been meaningless. E.g., ISP clock not being synchronized to MediaSentry's, misidentification by ISP, coasting off signal, zombies, etc. etc. The important thing is that prior to the lawsuit she immediately offered to let them inspect her computer to verify that it had nothing to do with her; they declined, saying they wanted their money.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Page 23, Section 10.3 of the action filed says that "Ms. Andersen was never observed downloading any mucis". A defense like that is nothing to sneeze at! The RIAA needs to be exposed for being the flim-phlegm men they are.
It is the 21st century and the time for Klax has passed.
OK, since you and a few others are claiming that I am factually incorrect I will respond and ask how. They had her IP address didnt they? Thats an honest question, I cant imagine they went after her without an IP address. And please dont respond with some discussion about dynamic IP addresses and so forth, I mean the IP address that was assigned to her at the time they found shared files. If they didnt have an IP address or some other way to identify her how on earth did they find her?
Jorghis, they lost. They sued Andersen knowing their process was error-prone, and they lost on the merits. This has already been litigated.
They supposedly had an IP address, gathered by an unlicensed private investigative company. One of the problems is that they didn't know whether or not it belonged to her, and they knew of that flaw. What's more, they were presented evidence that their claims were in error, and they sued anyway.
Just because nothing was found on the computer doesnt mean she is innocent, it isnt hard to completely remove some files from a computer. Logically, their presence may prove guilt but their absence proves nothing.
It's a lot harder than you seem to think. Anyone who has ever analyzed a hard drive knows that the wiping of specific evidence can be pretty glaring.
Of course, in this case we're talking about the absence of ALL evidence. There was no evidence she had done this. None. No pattern or history of filesharing; no connection of the unique Kazaa name to her (actually, identifying the likely culprit was pretty simple with a Google search), no similarity between Andersen's obvious music taste and the files that were shared. Simply an IP address, which may or may not have been hers at the time. History indicates that the matching of IP addresses after the fact to individuals is actually a rather flawed process.
And the RIAA knew all of this, and even admitted as much. Did you read the filing?
So perhaps you still wish to condemn her because she didn't "prove" her innocence. Of course, that's not the way our justice system works. But you'd have to be pretty hard up to see her as suspect to insist that she could be guilty, regardless.
Logically, their presence may prove guilt but their absence proves nothing. As long as they found her IP address sharing copyrighted material I dont see what the problem is.
Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case.
If they couldnt get enough evidence on top of that to get a guilty verdict that doesnt necessarily mean that suit was motivated by malicous reasons.
Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case.
I mean come on, it costs WAY more than 4000 dollars to go through with a lawsuit like this, if she was innocent they would have no logical reason to pursue it.
Oh, really? How about their explicitly-stated rationale that they didn't want to encourage others to defend themselves? How about the fact that they still hoped she would settle, and they could chalk up another "win" on their record?
Do you really believe that they were sueing her just to be dicks? It makes no sense.
Partially, yes. Partially because they know their "threaten-em-all" PR campaign is a house of cards into which they're totally invested.
I have a very cynical reaction to cries of "person XYZ was sued by the RIAA and is innocent". I mean, its so easy to find people who are guilty that it just seems ridiculous that they would go after someone who has done nothing in spite of all the costs involved.
Then you haven't read the filing, and aren't familiar with this case. The RIAA's actions weren't what you seem to think they were.
All that being said, if she actually is innocent I hope she wins, but I doubt that is the case and if it is she is a very small minority among the people getting sued.
As I said above, for all intents and purposes the RIAA lost on the merits, and there's absolutely, positively no evidence Andersen did anything wrong. By contrast, there's significant evidence the RIAA knowingly pursued baseless allegations in furtherance of a PR campaign.
Kythe
Does this mean the RIAA may actually have to face the music? *snickers*
The complaint is fairly devastating. Going by the complaint, the RIAA repeatedly refused to limit the damages their actions were causing or could reasonably expected to cause. It isn't wise to sue a highly sympathetic person without fair cause. You tend to loose at trial.
While it would be nice, I doubt it. They have too much $ to prop them up, even if they get a minor blackeye along the way.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
True story:
In the early days of OCR, one of our attorneys wanted to see if he could scan a ton of his old hard copy docs into the computer and said he'd heard how wonderful scanners were. In spite of my repeated explanations of how immature the tech was (think 1.0), he insisted, so I had him send down a couple of docs for a test.
Needless to say, the resulting OCR scan was a ridiculous mess. The "old fashioned" font used for "United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia" came out as:
But the funniest side effect was seeing "witness for the prosecution" converted to "witness to the prostitution".
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Just because nothing was found on the computer doesnt mean she is innocent,
As a matter of fact, it does.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
The RIAA lost the case. Understand that. Know that. They. Lost. The. Case. Just because you eject before your fighter jet explodes doesn't mean the jet didn't explode.
Fact: There was no evidence. They lost. Evidence has arisen that they were being malicious about it and knew they didn't have a case. It's called "scare tactics." They wanted to scare her into not taking it to trial. Sending someone a threatening letter is almost free. When she chose the court route, they had to at least try and prove they were right otherwise they would definitely be found guilty of extortion.
Are you even reading the replies to your posts? At least a half dozen people have written well reasoned replies based on the facts, and all you keep saying is "the lawyers cost more than $4000 so therefore the RIAA must have had evidence."
Reading the above post by NYCL - "2. It would mean those particular sound recordings are no longer copyrighted. It would have no bearing on the copyrights in the underlying song" - I would imagine it would still be illegal as the artist would still own the material and be the only one able to determine who can distribute it. That said, this would be an absolute gold mine for artists - as all royalties would then be due DIRECTLY to them, not the RIAA member company (correct me if I'm wrong there, but I do not believe I am).
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
So if the ISP gave the RIAA bad information doesnt the fault lie with the ISP? The RIAA acted on what they had. They knew a certain IP was sharing copyrighted materials and they knew the ISP pointed the finger at her. And offering up a computer doesnt mean much, there is no way to know it was the same computer, or the hard drive was the same. Even if there was a mistake (which I doubt, but truthfully I dont know for certain and neither do most of the people on here) they are guilty of poor judgement at best, if an ISP told me she was assigned that IP at that time I would have sued her too. I have a tough time seeing this as "they knowingly persecuted someone they knew to be innocent".
Incidentally, I am a little disappointed to note that you added me to your 'foes' list. I would think a real lawyer would be above such things, I am not here to make enemies. Do you consider people who argue against you in court to be your enemies as well? I am surprised at the level of hostility that my responses have elicited. I just dont see how the recording industry is doing anything 'evil' here.
While there may not have been enough evidence to win they were just going out and sueing people at random. They had reasons to honestly believe she was infringing. If the ISP pointed the finger at the wrong person thats not the RIAAs fault. It sounds to me like they acted with the information that they had available to them. They may have gone ahead with a case that wasnt strong enough to win, but that doesnt mean that they were knowingly chasing down someone they knew to be innocent. I have a very difficult time believing that they honestly thought she was innocent and decided to pursue it anyway.
Offering to let them search a computer/hard drive doesnt prove much, you could hand any computer or hard drive over, there is no way to know it was the same one that was used.
Given the kinds of responses I am getting here I cant help but think that there must be something I am totally missing here that proves her innocence and the RIAA knew about it. Is there anything besides the computer without copyrighted materials on it? I searched around on the internet but I couldnt find much beyond a bunch of people that hate the RIAA for very reasons. Is there something I am missing here?
funny- I guess that really does make them the MAFIAA- being prosecuted as organized crime
1. in order to identify her they used illegial methods. That makes their "evidence" already inadmissable.
2. How do you think you are supposed to prove your innocence of a crime such as that? You cannot prove a negative in that way - she offered them the chance to view a verfied copy of her harddisk. Deleting information systematically does show up and would show up as suspicious behaviour.
In other words she gave them every oppurtunity to back down, and when they eventually did it was on the eve of a verdict against them. A verdict that would have likely set State precedent and would have looked VERY VERY bad for them.
As such she is right to sue - illegial methods to gather evidence, which in itself can be a breach of RICO (as i understand, they broke it thousands of times) and as such she is seeking punitive damages - in exactly the same way THEY were seeking punitive (150k PER SONG!) damages against her. Turnabout is fair play, and all that.