Slashdot Log In
Andersen Vs. RIAA Counterclaims Challenged
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:05 PM
from the schmisabled dept.
from the schmisabled dept.
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)."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act 621 comments
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.
[+]
RIAA Going After a 10-Year-Old Girl 510 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The latest target of the RIAA's ire is a 10-year-old girl in Oregon, who was 7 when the alleged infringement occurred, and whose disabled mother lives on Social Security. In Atlantic v. Andersen, an Oregon case that was widely reported in 2005 when the defendant counterclaimed against the RIAA under Oregon's RICO statute and other laws, the defendant's mother sought to limit the RIAA's deposition of the child to telephone or video-conference. The RIAA has refused, insisting on being able to grill the little girl in person. Here are court documents (PDF)."
[+]
RIAA Drops Tanya Andersen Case 164 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After 2 years, the RIAA has finally dropped its longstanding case against disabled single mother Tanya Andersen in Oregon, Atlantic v. Andersen. The dismissal (pdf) relates merely to the RIAA's claims against Ms. Andersen, and does not relate to her (a) claim for attorneys fees or (b) counterclaims against the RIAA, which are presently before the Court on a motion to dismiss. The counterclaims were first interposed in December 2005. This is the same case in which the RIAA insisted on taking a face to face deposition of a 10 year old girl. Prior to the case, neither the mother nor the child had ever even heard of file sharing."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What a Catch-22! (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA put its foot in a trap. (Score:2)
Re:RIAA put its foot in a trap. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Anonymous Coward, dead at 15 (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
RIAA says, "Mission Accomplished!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Fear anything that is not authorized or offered to you by the media conglomerates.
If Dave Barry were here . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If Dave Barry were here . . . (Score:5, Funny)
"I'll try the death by chocolate...oh, wait, the tort of outrage looks yummy!"
Parent
Re:If Dave Barry were here . . . (Score:5, Funny)
"I'll try the death by chocolate...oh, wait, the tort of outrage looks yummy!"
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If Dave Barry were here . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Then, there's the torte made with Limburger cheese: the torte of public nuisance.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... you said death first!
Oh, alright. Give him "tort of outrage"
Just be glad I'm not Church of England.
Consider Your Music Library (Score:5, Insightful)
Why support RIAA by buying their music, when they are using YOUR MONEY in a way that is morally wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Because I'm Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Consider Your Music Library (Score:5, Funny)
Only on Slashdot....
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Naaw.. i thought they'd just sit back and take it. (Score:2)
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.
criminal charges? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:That's not what it says. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Say what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a pic of the explanation:
http://i17.tinypic.com/352g7jp.jpg [tinypic.com]
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 hav
thinkofthechildren (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:thinkofthechildren (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about having no money? "Blood from a stone (or turnip)" and all that?
But kidding aside, I can't see why a child could be liable for laws they have no say in. I'm sure there's a legally great reason, but not a morally good one.
The luckiest of all is the child who was never born.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that children can kill people at will because they don't get to vote? How about convicted felons who can't vote either, do they get a free pass? Legal and illegal aliens?
As to the monetary issue, parents are responsible for the financial debts of their minor children with few exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:thinkofthechildren (Score:4, Funny)
Totally, man. Then I'll send my army of immune child assassins to clean up Slashdot. Then the world! I'm king of the world, and there's nothing you can do to stop me with my tiny army!!!! Mwuhahahhahahahaha!!!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
yeah.. sadly minors often consider telling someone what they think they want to hear is the same as truth.
Putting a minor on a stand has to be looked at very carefully because of many issues such as reliability, the idea of consequences can be foriegn, and many other issues.
Finally, a minor should not be tried for copyright infringement, except under certian exception, determined on a case by case
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure the GP poster was arguing about the legal status, but rather the ethical one.
On the one hand, someone too young to understand that something is wrong and the negative consequences of doing it clearly should not be punished for their actions. On the other hand, the older person responsible for them who does understand should not be giving them the freedom to do damaging things. If, as a result of the responsible adult's negligence, a child causes harm to someone else, then while the responsibl
Legal or Illegal? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legal or Illegal? (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't honestly been paying much attention, but are they alleging criminal copyright violation as well?
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
Although this must be a civil case, I just want to raise the point that a minor could indeed be guilty of criminal copyright infringement. Illegally selling a copy of one song is a criminal act. Or distributing more than $1,000 worth of copyrighted materials in a 180 day period, of which there are only two and a bit in a whole year. That wouldn't be particularly hard.
I do have to wonder how the calculation of value works on a bittorrent network. If I distribute 5% of a copyrighted work, do they count that as a full distribution? Or am I only liable for 5% of its value? I can only imagine what the RIAA would ask for, but what has actually happened in court?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
No, she should not be prosecuted specifically because she was 7.
It is not reasonable to think she is able to make that distinction.
In your example there are many people who should be prosecuted, she is not one of them.
Re:Legal or Illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
(I know you're being rhetorical.)
I can't see how it would serve to benefit society at large to prosecute a 7 year old for drunk driving, or even for driving, since I doubt that drunkenness would make a 7 year old's driving any worse. At some point, a prosecutor and judge would have to say tha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
No, but for the most part you cannot be held responsible for doing them. There is a relationship between responsibility and rights that seems sadly overlooked by our educational system. If you do not have legal protection for freedom of speech, then it is unethical to hold someone legally responsible for whatever speech they make. If you don't have the legal right to go where you want and buy a car if you want and apply for a driver's license and legally purchase and consume alcohol, then legally you can
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with your whole argument is that you accept the RIAA's statements as fact when they are in dispute. No one would disagree with you that pirating music is illegal and the fact the girl was seven years old when the pirating allegedly took place. The issue in this case as in many others is whether the RIAA has engaged in illegal behaviors to pursue those who pir
Time for a barratry prosecution against the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Barratry [ceb.com] is a criminal offense in California.
From the California Penal Code: [ca.gov]
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.
Do we need to know every time the RIAA farts? (Score:2)
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
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
News for nerds. Stuff that matters.
Besides: If you're not interested, it's as simple as not clicking on the article.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Most Slashdotters don't have any trouble not clicking on the articles.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 preju
Because. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Because. (Score:5, Insightful)
The site was not offering anything illegal, nor were they providing anything illegal.
Where they are(were?) located what they were doing WAS NOT ILLEGAL.
They had ALL THE MORAL GROUND there is, what ground did the *iaa have to persecute them ILLEGALLY?
The RIAA demonstrated they know little about how bitTorrent works.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
So you consider requiring a high school student to give a deposition [blogspot.com] 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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