RIAA countersued

[SilverBlade]

This is from torrentspy:

A woman who was sued by the Recording Industry of America for file-sharing has countersued the outfit for hacking.

Tanya Andersen, a 41-year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, has countersued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation. She is claiming hurt feelings and "outrage", and deceptive business practices.

According to court documents here, Anderson said the record industry has been abusing the law courts and waged a public relations and public threat campaign targeting file sharing.

She claims that the RIAA hired an outfit called MediaSentry to invade private home computers and collect personal information. Based on private information allegedly extracted from these personal home computers, the record companies have reportedly filed lawsuits against more than 13,500 anonymous "John Does".

She claims the record companies provide the personal information to Settlement Support Center, which engages in outlawed and deceptive debt collection and other illegal conduct to extract money from the people allegedly identified from the secret lawsuits.

She said that she has never downloaded or shared music online. She has not infringed on any of plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted interest. However, she has been a victim of the record companies’ public threat campaign.

The RIAA falsely claimed that Andersen had been an "unnamed" defendant who was being sued in federal court in the District of Columbia. She was never named in that lawsuit and never received service of a summons and complaint, she said.

When Andersen contacted Settlement Support Center, she was advised that her personal home computer had been secretly entered by the record companies’ agents, MediaSentry.

Apparently she had been up at 4:24am downloading "gangster rap" music under the login name “gotenkito@kazaa.com.” Andersen does not like "gangster rap", does not recognise the name "gotenkito", is not awake at 4:24 a.m. and has never downloaded music.

The Settlement Support Center threatened that if Andersen did not immediately pay them, the record companies would bring an expensive and disruptive federal lawsuit using her name and they would get a judgment for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I hope she wins. If she does, this will open the door for other counter-sues to follow. Then the RIAA will learn its lesson.

[Kingnog]

Then the RIAA will learn its lesson.

lol

[Supreme2k]

I hope she wins. If she does, this will open the door for other counter-sues to follow. Then the RIAA will learn its lesson.

Yes. And the lesson will be:

"If at first you don't suceed, try and try again."

[ricky1756]

if at first you don't succeed, buy another politician

[johnny quest]

This is just an opinion from a dumb ol' country lawyer but I would offer the following:

Assuming the OP's story is legit, this is a perfect example of why Class Action suits were originally created. Standing alone against the RIAA, the plaintiff cannot outlast the barrage of legal costs that will be waged against her. Depositions, discovery, etc. Plus, the RIAA would hardly be concerned over a lone plaintiff. If however, more John Doe's came forward with legitimate claims and consolidated a class action suit, this would constitute a clear threat to the RIAA's unlawful tactics. Although ultimately the plaintiffs would receive little monetary compensation (in reality their damages are nominal) the threat of a multi-million dollar settlement or award would make them rethink their current strategy.

Personally I think that we all realize that illegal downloading is rampant with music, movies, and software, however I don't believe that you can disregard current legislation as a counter to the threat. Then again, the erosion of personal privacy has been eroded in the name of lesser evils.

[CaptainVideo]

The hacking claim doesn't have much merit. All file sharing apps announce themselves to the world with information on what you are sharing and where you are located. Such as IP xxx.xxx.x.x. I think where she might be successful is that the RIAA has to prove they have the correct information of which they most likely don't have and that is where they will lose.

All this is moot if she doesn't have the money to pursue it fully or her lawyer is inept.

[lordsmurf]

Why do cases have to be "expensive".
I fail to understand how it can be "made expensive".

[RIAA]

In this post-911 world, you have to expect that certain personal rights will be surrendered, willingly or not, to keep the country safe.

[junkmalle]

In this post-911 world, you have to expect that certain personal rights will be surrendered, willingly or not, to keep the country safe.

LOL!

[Alan69]

In this post-911 world, you have to expect that certain personal rights will be surrendered, willingly or not, to keep the country safe.

Possibly, and those that should be for security's sake have to do with SECURITY, not your profit motive. What an absolutely assinine, totally un-American thing to say. Let's volunteer you personally for your well deserved 20 years in a Turkish prision, then see how you like our giving away your rights. Is this account is actually connected to the RIAA? I find it hard to believe that anyone there would actually be dumb enough to actually say the above quote. Of course they're not rocket scientists, but this is truly a pathetic reach.

I'm personally all for artists' rights. Why not start at the beginning, and at home, and make restitution for every crooked deal made by the record companies? Very unlikely the thieves on the outside of the business are even half as bad as the thieves on the inside.

Alan

[parallax1]

Why do cases have to be "expensive".
I fail to understand how it can be "made expensive".

Paperwork. Lawyers charge by the hour. The only thing she has going for her is that her lawyer is probably hoping for a percentage of the award....

[adam]

The attorneys are representing her through the EFF so there is a strong chance that they are working pro bono. I think they are probably in it more for the publicity than for the money.

Either way her claims seem pretty weak. If you read the petition its clear that this evidence which they stole and hacked their way to get is just the log of her actions on Kazaa, which of course they don't have to steal or hack to get. There's nothing wrong or illegal about logging someone's ip as they transfer files over P2P. There is also a Federal case already saying that you have no right to privacy in your ip or file list when using P2P.

Her claims basically sound self defeating to me. The RIAA has a log of her ip distributing files over Kazaa. Her defense is/was that she just didn't do it. Ok so that means someone else used her computer or her internet connection to share those files. So not only does that explain why files might have been tampered with but it justifies the RIAA's suit against her since all they were doing was following the ip and later dropped the suit when they found out it wasn't her.

She also complains about the use of John Doe suits to obtain parties' names but that is an accepted legal practice.

Then she complains about the threats used to pursue settlement. If this is true that agency and the RIAA could be fined, but I don't think that's gonna phase them any.

[thoughton]

You need to read more about this case before pronouncing this woman's claim to be 'self-defeating'. There are several key points you have conveniently glossed over, like the RIAA's shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach for starters. If they had spent a few minutes investigating they would have found out this 42 year old woman isn't in the 4am gangsta-rap demographic. It is the way the RIAA sues without thinking that pisses people off. Some reports also discuss a verbal admission (concerning tactics) by the one of the investigators, and that is where the racketeering charge comes in.

[ROF]

The hacking claim doesn't have much merit. All file sharing apps announce themselves to the world with information on what you are sharing and where you are located. Such as IP xxx.xxx.x.x. I think where she might be successful is that the RIAA has to prove they have the correct information of which they most likely don't have and that is where they will lose.

The hacking claim does work if you are using any file sharing P2P service. Read the EULA for installation and use of those networks. No user is allowed to collect or spy on another individual. That includes big business or spyware corporations such as MediaSentry. One of the biggest rules of law in this land is that you can not take the law into your own hands, even to prove other violations of the law. The only people authorized to spy on your activities is the government and even they have strict guidelines they have to follow before anything is admissable.

Invasion of privacy, violations of Terms of Service, and hacking to gain private information are all admissable and I'm quite surprised no one used this defense before.

[GullyFoyle]

What is really scary are all the government good people who post on this issue. We see a continual erosion of civil rights and constitutional rights in the US. Most of it done to protect corporate profit.
It always starts with the weakest. Those without the power to defend themselves. Then it creeps up the food chain to the middle of the roaders. But it NEVER hits the rich who have the money to buy themselves out of any problem.
For those foolish enough to defend Big Government Big Media Big Money keep in mind you are next.

[ricky1756]

i agree with you 100 percent gully, it's getting scary

[smearbrick1]

In this post-911 world, you have to expect that certain personal rights will be surrendered, willingly or not, to keep the country safe.

This may be the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Benjamin Franklin is rolling over in his grave over this comment. Of course, I'm not really surprised. This comment coming from a user with a username of RIAA and a tagline like yours I'd expect as much.

I really wish people would stop throwing around the term "post 9/11 world" or "post 9/11 era"... The world is the same place it was prior to 9/11. Stop using 9/11 as an excuse to take away my civil rights. The tragedies of 9/11 have nothing to do with online music piracy. Please do not cheapen 9/11 by trying to put it in the same category.

[lpn1160]

First they came for the jews and no one spoke out.
then they came for the blacks and no one spoke out
then they came for all the foreigners and no one spoke out
Then they came for us. Who is left to speak up.
Losing your "God given rights" Is happening right b4 our eyes!!!!!

[smearbrick1]

In this post-911 world, you have to expect that certain personal rights will be surrendered, willingly or not, to keep the country safe.

This may be the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Benjamin Franklin is rolling over in his grave over this comment. Of course, I'm not really surprised. This comment coming from a user with a username of RIAA and a tagline like yours I'd expect as much.

I really wish people would stop throwing around the term "post 9/11 world" or "post 9/11 era"... The world is the same place it was prior to 9/11. Stop using 9/11 as an excuse to take away my civil rights. The tragedies of 9/11 have nothing to do with online music piracy. Please do not cheapen 9/11 by trying to put it in the same category.

Sorry to quote my own post, but I wanted to add this:

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

I believe someone is using this as a tagline. It's brilliant.

[adam]

thoughton I do not think you understand the nature of the suit that this stems from. The RIAA's representatives observed someone engaging in infringing activity, and all they had to identify this person was their ip. At this point they know for a fact that they have a claim against SOMEONE and that someone used that account. So they file suit against John Doe and subpoena the isp to give the account holder's name for this ip address, then they amend their pleadings to make them against this person instead. This is what happened to this woman and this is what happens in all the file sharing suits. I know because I've defended clients against them before. You HAVE to shoot first and ask questions later because its the only way to find the identity of the person who you want to sue. This is also a legitimate means to obtain basic discovery like a person's name. I mean if someone breaks into your house and makes a long distance call you aren't going to blame the phone company for charging you are you? Until its brought to their attention that someone else might have illegally used your account without authorization, YOU are on the hook since its your account.

When the RIAA later determined that she was mostly likely the victim of someone else using her computer without authorization, they dropped their suit.

In the meantime they might have abused the legal process by using various threats to coerce a settlement. I acknowledged that these claims of hers may be valid, its just a fact question.

Its the hacking claims that I deemed self defeating and they really are. ROF a EULA is only enforcable by the party that makes it, in this case Kazaa, and its only a contractual agreement the violation of which would not make evidence inadmissible against a 3rd party. P2P programs include that language in their licenses to protect themselves so they can't be accused of being used to spy on people. Like I already said, there is caselaw on this that says you can log onto P2P and record logs of someone distributing files and then use that as evidence in a suit against them. It is not invasion of privacy because there is no expectation of privacy in your ip or file list when on an open P2P network. THAT is the law.

And once again my point about the hacking claims being self defeating is referring to the fact that her defense to infringement was an unsecure computer and/or network but in order to prove she was hacked by the RIAA's agency she'd basically have to show the opposite. Otherwise how would we know whether the RIAA did it or this other party?

[adam]

As for the post 9-11 world and rights being taken away, the guy's nick is RIAA so I think you've got to take his statements with a grain of salt.

[ricky1756]

lpn, it's not god given rights i'm worried about losing, it's the rights protected by the constitution. Bush and his illegitimate regime are destroying more of those rights everyday.

[adam]

Ok, seriously guys drop the politics. Let's just talk about the lawsuit.

[ROF]

Ok, seriously guys drop the politics. Let's just talk about the lawsuit.

Some people will turn everything into a congressional hearing. It makes them feel comfortable in the false knowledge that somehow the government is conspiring against them to take away their rights to steal a product from a corporation trying to make a profit.

I don't agree with the tactics the RIAA is using to find these tentative thieves because they are violating other laws in order to obtain the information used in prosecution.

Most people in the world can't afford a static IP.

Quite a few can't afford a broadband connection.

Just because some individual signs on at 4:15AM and downloads a bunch of gangsta rap with an IP of 64.128.xxxx and signs offline after grabbing 10-15 songs, doesn't mean the woman who signs on at 4:30AM that same morning to check her email and is assigned the IP of 64.128.xxxx is the same person. The tactics the RIAA uses is an IP Trace, similiar to what hackers use. From this they can garner an ISP and with a little more illegal sleuthing can result in the retrieval of more private and in some cases incorrect information. It can and does happen.

The RIAA or the spies have no authority to do what they do. They also violate the TOS/EULA of the P2P Network by running their sleuthing bots on the network. I hope this woman wins, if in fact the similiar scenario I described above proves to be true.

[adam]

Some people will turn everything into a congressional hearing. It makes them feel comfortable in the false knowledge that somehow the government is conspiring against them to take away their rights to steal a product from a corporation trying to make a profit.

ROF, what did I just say? No more politics please.

That is not how these suits work at all. You log the ip and the time of infringement. The isp can trace this to the account that used it. There is zero chance that you will get caught up in this because your ip was reassigned to that of an infringer.

The RIAA logs activity for hours anyway so its not like this is going to turn on a split second. All of the mistaken identity cases have still been tied to the correct account, someone else just used it. Like that whole RIAA bashing about how they sued an elderly family that didn't even have a computer...well their son did have one and they let him get cable internet access through their cable provider while he lived with them.

And as of yet there is no evidence that the RIAA has violated any laws in bringing their suits. Procedurally they have all been valid. What is in question is their settlement attempts. You can make threats to a certain extent in settlement...its expressly authorized in the model rules of professional responsibility. If they crossed the line they can be fined. But the fact that the RIAA are corporate ******** is not evidence that they did cross that line.

[GullyFoyle]

And as of yet there is no evidence that the RIAA has violated any laws in bringing their suits. Procedurally they have all been valid. What is in question is their settlement attempts. You can make threats to a certain extent in settlement...its expressly authorized in the model rules of professional responsibility. If they crossed the line they can be fined. But the fact that the RIAA are corporate ******** is not evidence that they did cross that line.

Prove that statement? Have you seen EVERY suit?
Most of them are filed against people who do not fight back. They are either poor, teenyboppers, or techno naive. The settel to avoid the threat.
Your defense of the RIAA big money missed this
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-09-24-riaa-drops-suit_x.htm

n a possible case of mistaken identity, the recording industry has withdrawn a lawsuit against a 66-year-old sculptor who claims never to have even downloaded song-sharing software, let alone used it.

Sarah Seabury Ward, of Newbury, Mass., and her husband use their computer to e-mail with children and grandchildren, said Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Cindy Cohn, who has worked with the family. They use a Macintosh, which cannot even run the Kazaa file-sharing service they are accused of using illegally.

Nonetheless, Ward was one of 261 defendants sued by the recording industry this month for illegal Internet file-sharing. Ward was accused of illegally sharing more than 2,000 songs, including rapper Trick Daddy's "I'm a Thug."

Hmm, older person downloading rap, doesn't that sound familiar?

Or this
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:h25ufCWQRLIJ:www.grammy.com/news/newswatch/2003/12...ops+suit&hl=en

Group Claims Mistaken Identity Over RIAA Suit
In a move that could set up a showdown over record companies' methods for identifying suspected music pirates, an online civil rights group has accused three record labels of wrongly pursuing legal action against a Playa del Rey, Calif., man. On Monday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation claimed Ross Plank is the second victim of mistaken identity among the 261 targets of high-profile lawsuits against individuals accused of illegally swapping songs online. The labels referred questions to the Recording Industry Association of America, which said it was investigating the matter. (10/14)

I imagine RIAA throws in terms like "gangsta rap" the same way police use "dirty" or "combative". A demeaning phrase that is hard to prove after the fact.
Either way both instances prove RIAA makes mistakes and those who choose to challenge win.

[ROF]

How does the RIAA gain this information? Are they spying on a network where clearly the TOS states you can not spy on the actvivity of others. They are violating the privacy of these P2P users. P2P has significant legitimate uses, but it also has a large infringing use. What if I were to spy on all transactions occuring at Amazon.com for a few hours? How is that different?

[GullyFoyle]

ROF
We are now prisoners of Big Corporate Money. What they can get away with they will. When have Corporations ever worried about civil rights? Constitutional freedoms? Or even conscience.
As I said the really scary part is those who defend and justify the RIAA abuse of power. Those are the ones reporting their neighbors to Homeland Security.

When even artists are challenging the recording industry you know something is wrong.
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=281048

[adam]

You want me to prove that something doesn't exist? Let me explain how the legal system works. If you want to prove something YOU put forth evidence and get a ruling. I'm not saying the RIAA hasn't broken laws in bringing their suits, I have no frickin' idea, I'm saying that no one has shown any evidence of this yet. I'm not defending the RIAA, I'm defending common sense. If there's no evidence one way or the other than don't just make shit up, wait until the evidence does come out.

Look if some wardriver is hacking into a 90 year old, blind, deaf, Mac user's computer and downloading gansta rap on the RIAA's end its still just an ip number which could belong to anybody. They can't evaluate the likelihood of mistaken identity until they at least know WHO they are suing and so far I am not aware of any case in which the person presented a valid case of mistaken identity and not had the case dropped.

[adam]

ROF why do you keep posting in these types of threads if you aren't even reading what others are writing. Did you not read my post at all?

The license agreement for P2P programs is enforceable by the P2P operator. Little old lady accused of downloading gansta rap cannot keep the RIAA from logging her ip on P2P. I have now said for the second damn time that there is a Federal court ruling saying that you have NO expectation or right of privacy in either your IP address or your file list when on an open P2P network. This makes perfect sense since you are broadcasting this information to every other person on that network.

Amazon's transaction information is not transferred on an open network, it contains information which IS protected by a right of privacy, and people using the service are only broadcasting information directly to amazon not to every other person on the network.