Andersen Vs. RIAA Counterclaims Challenged 149
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)."
Re:thinkofthechildren (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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?
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.
Re:Legal or Illegal? (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 cannot be held responsible for doing those things. Children's rights are held in trust for them and managed by their parents and by the state. It is, therefor, the legal responsibility of the parents and the state to prevent children from drunk driving.
Parents don't seem to care what their kids do, unless they are caught. Of course, since there's a huge push for kids being allowed to do whatever they want and that parents shouldn't force any sort of morals on their kids and stuff like that, it just makes sense. But seriously, parents should know what their kids are doing.
Parents along with the state are legally responsible for what their children do, so if they are intelligent then they certainly should know what their children are doing and take reasonable steps to control those actions. The problem is when new technology runs into legislation in ways the parents don't even know exist, especially when the ethics of those laws are highly questionable in the first place and are enforced only a tiny fraction of the time.
Whether or not you like the RIAA, pirated music IS illegal, is it not?
Actually, no it probably is not. Distributing copies of copyrighted music is grounds for a civil lawsuit, which is not quite as simple as "pirated music is illegal."
Whether or not you're seven years old.
At 7 years old can you legally use the computer whenever you want to upload whatever you want without your parents being legally able to physically stop you? Do you have the right to do those things, even if your parents tell you not to? If so, then sure hold her legally responsible, but I've never heard of any such legal protection for children.
Copyrights apply to minors.
You know this is taking the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" thing to absurd new degrees. You honestly think it is just to hold a 7 year old child responsible for knowing and obeying, literally millions of lines of rules, many of which are accessible only at locations to which they don't have access and which are written in a strange mix of archaic english and latin? If you were seven and your dad smacked you for not obeying a rule you had never been taught, you'd think that is justice? Your perspective, or lack thereof, is tragic.
While the RIAA is consistently criticized (and perhaps rightly so), very few suggestions are made for protecting copyrighted music.
Music copyrights don't need protection at this point. Rather, citizens need protection from absurd copyrights. Copyright law is an artificial restriction that is supposed to exist only for the benefit of society as a whole. I think it is clear at this point that the laws have been corrupted to such an extent by simple greed that they are a detriment to society. Until such a time as they are reformed, It would be better if they were abolished or not enforced at all.
and copyrights can be a rather helpful thing, because there are people that will steal and even promote it as their own
How can one steal a granted right?
...taking royalties or sales or whatever you like.
That is not stealing, by definition. That is committing copyright infringement, which is to say exercising one's basic human right to free expression without
Re:Legal or Illegal? (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 pirate music and pursued those whom they know to be innocent of any charges.
The defendant has claimed that from the beginning she offered her HD to the RIAA to clear her name but that the only two options that they offered to her were a settlement (and payment) or a lawsuit. Her accusations may or may not be true; however, the events of the lawsuit coincide with her story and the RIAA have not disputed her account of the events.
The outrage over her daughter concerns the RIAA's next tactics. After her HD was presented to the RIAA, they have not produced any evidence from it that would suggest that she (or anyone) had engaged in any illegal file-sharing. Despite the lack of evidence, the RIAA wished to depose her minor daughter. During this time, the RIAA pushed her to settle, hinting that they would sue daughter as well if she did not agree. If you were completely innocent of wrongdoing, how outraged would you be if they RIAA went after your children next.
These deplorable tactics are embodied in the counterclaims. When first contacted with the settlement center, they informed her that they already had gathered the evidence against her and that she should settle. If true, their gathering of evidence would constitute trespass. If the statements were false, then the settlement center (and the RIAA) would be guilty of fraud, extortion, and racketeering. Of course, these are all alleged, but her story is not unique from the many cases already reported.
Re:Relevant? (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 a threshold for that type of claim to be litigated.
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.