Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act

devnulljapan is one of many users to let us know that another single mother is taking the fight to the RIAA. More than just standing up to them however, Tanya Anderson has decided to go on the offensive and countersue. In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate the suit identifies violations of the Oregon RICO Act in addition to 'fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.' Ms. Anderson has also demanded a trial by jury.

Introductory sentence

[ergo98 (9391)]

This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for.

Is this really true? If you use P2P to share original works of art (nothing is stopping you from doing it) - for instance a personal flickr - or to share legitimate files like Linux distros, why would you really care about someone fighting the RIAA regarding copyright issues? This doesn't really seem like a P2P issue, but rather a copyright infringement issue.

Re:Introductory sentence

[ejito (700826)]

Napster was fully shutdown years ago, regardless of whether the songs on the network were legal. MP3.com had a vast free music network, but someone decided to upload music that wasn't theirs; mp3.com got sued and had to sell their domain (and no longer do we have access to those files). Limewire will now require licensing in its files, hardly something you'd do for your own personal files.

Even if you are sharing legal items, RIAA is making it harder to do so on p2p networks.

Re:Introductory sentence

[by Anonymous Coward]

Napster was really shutdown because of "mission" statements made by the founders/creators of Napter. Those statements basically stated that they developed the tools as a means to undermine RIAA, etc. That is what pushed things over the edge in the courts eyes.

You are wrong about mp3.com

[usurper_ii (306966)]

Someone didn't "upload" music that wasn't theirs. What MP3.com did was take advantage of the Right to format shift, starting a music locker service that worked like this: a user put a legit CD in their CD-ROM and it "beamed" the music to the locker in MP3 format. Now what they actually did was buy a ton of CDs and rip them to MP3, so that users only had to have access to a real cd to instantly get access to the exact same songs in MP3 format. To that end, MP3.com went to great lengths to make sure what they were doing was legal to begin with...and remember, it is legal to format shift AND the user had to have a real, physical CD of the same music to access the service (at which point they could have just ripped it to MP3 to begin with).

Usurper_ii

Re:Introductory sentence

[oirtemed (849229)]

Go read Lessig's Free Culture, then come back to the discussion with a little more realistic perspective. Apparently you missed the real cruft of this situation. It is less about copyright issues right now and more about corporations abusing the legal system and bullying people into submission.

Re:Introductory sentence

[mccalli (323026)]

Is this really true?

No, as you correctly note it isn't really true. Reading the article shows that Ms. Anderson is stating she has never been a file sharer and has never used P2P software. By definition then, this case is not "the case P2P file sharers have been waiting for" as it is not involving the rights and wrongs of P2P.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Introductory sentence

[Matilda the Hun (861460)]

Actually, one could argue that it is what P2P people have been waiting for. All hashing around aside, you can't really argue that filesharing mp3s is illegal. However, if someone pulls something like this against the RIAA, based not on the fact that "It's not illegal to share mp3s" but "It's illegal to get information off my computer like that", it'll probably not only open the floodgates of other claims against them, but it might just stop them from bringing up these stupid suits in the first place.

Maybe.

Re:Introductory sentence

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Thank you. With the RIAA's primary tactic being to try to confuse the issue to suit them, it becomes that much more important that we present the truth as clearly and precisely as we can.

Re:Introductory sentence

[Kythe (4779)]

I have to disagree. Since the RIAA's extortion cases--in other words, their campaign using lawsuits to shut down p2p networks--have basically consisted of no evidence of actual infringement, shutting down their current operations will most definitely be in P2P users' interests.

Further, it would appear from the counterclaims that MediaSentry may have been engaged in some highly shady and legally dubious behavior of its own (e.g. perhaps browsing people's computers without permission and using what they find, even if its non-p2p related, to "encourage" settlement. Maybe they've been doing so using default Windows shares, rather than Kazaa or other p2p sharing features. Who knows?). If this is the case, then many of the RIAA's claims about p2p filesharing may themselves be called into doubt. Again: something from which P2P users would benefit.

Ultimately, P2P users will benefit if the RIAA's terror campaign gets shut down. Ironically, given the fact that the record companies are seeing some record profits even as filesharing goes up, so may the record companies.

RIAA vs. P2P ...

[mister_llah (891540)]

Why?

RIAA wants P2P networks shutdown due to these copyright issues.

Universities and other organizations block P2P because of these same copyright issues, under pressure from lawsuit threats by the RIAA.

===

The RIAA is a threat to P2P, even if you are just sharing original works of art.

Legal users may not have as much of an interest in seeing RIAA get a punch to the kidneys, but there is still some cause for interest, I'd say.

[Legal uses of P2P filesharing are an innocent bystander, but they still will get gunned down with illegals]

(( this coming from someone who had his access removed at a university for sharing the Project Gutenberg DVD on eDonkey ))

Put them???

[Black Parrot (19622)]

> In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate

How can you 'put' something where it already is?

It only takes a few...

[sribe (304414)]

The RIAA's mistake is that they have confused "only 1 in 1,000 people will make the effort to stand up to us" with "no one will stand up to us". If they'd sued 1 person with those odds, there would be very little chance of adverse consequences. But they sued 10s of 1000s of people, so those rare 1 in 1000 individuals are becoming a real pain ;-)

Re:It only takes a few...

[mister_llah (891540)]

It only takes a few, aye, and only starts there.

If any of these cases against the RIAA are successful... I think we'll see many more people standing up to them.

Once you can prove that Goliath can be felled with just a sling, everyone wants to be David.

You go girl!

[fragmentate (908035)]

I received one of these letters in the mail, it claimed that I owed $4,583 for having downloaded "Enter Sandman" by Metallica... Well, I've never downloaded that MP3, and I've never even owned a Metallica CD to rip the song from.

Reason: I really don't like Metallica, at all. (simple!)

There is still an outstanding debt to these people, and it's still in collections. I hope she sets a precedent (which involves tying several statutes together) by winning.

In recent weeks I've read more and more about the RIAA and the MPAA. I think they should help the tobacco industry run new campaigns... the tobacco guys could learn a thing or two from these greedies...

Make the records open!

[boingyzain (739759)]

There was another case last year in which an individual fought back against the RIAA. That case quietly went away, and there was no mention of a settlement. Please MAKE SOME NOISE about this case! Let the public see the tangled web of lies the recording industry has cast, and make sure that records of this case remain open for reference by all of the future victims they will undoubtably harrass and intimidate in their efforts to regain lost revenue from their failing business practices.

In an age when the common people are routinely intimidated and threatened by corporations whom they cannot possibly afford to face in a court of law, one can't help but believe that justice is dead.

Re:Make the records open!

[Erik_the_Awful (675368)]

You can get the complete records on this by using Pacer. See https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl? court_id=00idx [uscourts.gov] You need a credit card, but using pacer is suprisingly cheap. The case is properly cited as "3:05-cv-00933-AS Atlantic Recording Corporation et al v. Andersen". When you search, search Oregon Civil court, and use "Andersen, Tanya" has a search. You can see who the lawyers are, what papers have been filed, and the docket describing when the case will go to trial.

Actually, it's not Oregon

[Aeron65432 (805385)]

The RICO act is actually a United States Federal law, meaning you can sue under this act not just in Oregon. (Wink wink nudge nudge)

"Under RICO [wikipedia.org]", a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes--27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes--within a 10-year period and (in the opinion of the U. S. Attorney bringing the case) has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages."

So for everyone in every other state in the Union, sue away!

Some of this is Nonsense

[stevemm81 (203868)]

Some of this appears to be crap, or at least just lawyers playing hardball. She claims that there was no such material on her computer, and that the RIAA broke into the computer to locate such material. The first
may be true - it may be a genuine mistake, but the second argument I really doubt. I believe that the RIAA does not do any more than search public P2P search engines for their copyrighted content, and her argument that this searching is trespass to chattels is nonsense.

That being said, I would blame her lawyer, not her personally. But still, it's hard to know how seriously the RICO allegations should be taken, or whether they're just a way to make the case a pain for the RIAA.

Shots Across the Bow

[Bullfish (858648)]

Good luck I suppose is in order.

While we may all feel that the RIAA has all all the trappings and actions of the Soprano crew, somehow I don't think that particular claim is going to wash with the the courts. On the other hand, it is out of the books of law enforcement in terms of hitting the accused with a large number of charges, most of which get thrown out, but some stick. Enough to make it worthwhile to go to court. This is a civil case, but the idea is the same.

The interesting thing to me is that is a sign of the RIAA cases startng to get out-of-hand from the RIAA's point of view. People are counter-suing, and now with omnibus claims. Rather than backing down against their legal might, some people are starting to fight back and they run the case of making sympathetic figures of those they are going after and making themselves out to be bad guys to the general public. Up to now, all the publicity in the mainstream has gone for the most part, the RIAA's way. This type of thing if it continues can harden the general public against the RIAA making their present tactics counter-productive. And as a by-product, can make it harder to find sympathetic jurors and judges to their cause.

The big fear I would have if I were the RIAA, is that sooner or later unless they change tactics, they could face class action lawsuits.

This is a nice shot across the bow of the RIAA.

RIAA violating DMCA?

[john82 (68332)]

IANAL, but item 21 in the countersuit sounds interesting:

21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to break into Ms. Andersen's personal computer (and those of tens of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersen's permission to inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms. Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was anonymously sued.

Couldn't that be construed as a violation of DMCA? And while we're at it, who gave MediaSentry the authority to conduct an electronic wiretap?

I sincerely hope that Ms. Andersen's countersuit is successful and MediaSentry is forced out of business as a result of the damages awarded.

No

[Wesley Felter (138342)]

Couldn't that be construed as a violation of DMCA?

Breaking into computers in order to spy on people is not a violation of the DMCA; it's a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (as it says right in the article).

And while we're at it, who gave MediaSentry the authority to conduct an electronic wiretap?

There's no evidence that they conducted anything resembling a wiretap, nor is there evidence that they broke into any computer. That's not how these P2P monitoring companies generally work (since it's so obviously illegal). They just observe which IP addresses are sharing which files. That's not a wiretap.

The RIAA's lawsuits are bad, but this countersuit appears to be overreaching in the opposite direction.

Knuth, Justice and the American Way

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

RICO should be easily recognized by programmers. A RICO crime is like an array of individual crimes. It's the more manageable collection structure, both for racketeers racking up crimes into organzied crime businesses, and for prosecutors targeting them with evidence of those crimes. It's like the inverse of a "class action suit", which itself should be familiar to object-oriented programmers. With the law reinventing various programming patterns, how long will it be before we can submit new laws to a "justice compiler" to test whether it will execute? Something like a lintian "constitutionality validator"?

Ouch.

[Hawthorne01 (575586)]

Between this, the whining re: shariing in iPod revenue, and the demands to raise iTunes Music Store prices, it's not a good week to be an RIAA exec.

Like there's a GOOD week to be an RIAA exec. :)

Might be something

[ericdano (113424)]

There might be something to her arguments. Industry does not want to stick with a $.99 a song model. They sue people, but never take it to court, and insist upon a "settlement". They have prices fixed for almost 20 years now. Sounds like a abusive monopoly to me.

Hopefully the industry will get bitch-slapped by this. If this lady were to win, then people the RIAA has "successfully sued" might ban together and sue the RIAA. It could potentially get really messy for the RIAA.

The industry basically needs to realize that their products are too expensive, and that the quality is not as good. They need to really get behind the legal download model, such as iTunes rather than making innuendos about "decapiting" it.

Not Fraud?

[tgraupmann (679996)]

I've heard Fraud isn't Fraud unless it's investigated. Who investigates RIAA practices? All the cases have been corporate layers versus starving students. The student is usually getting sued for 6x to 100x tuition they cannot afford in every case, I think there is something worth investigating there. I even heard that the RIAA attempts to recruit the student to pay off their debt.