Andersen Vs. RIAA Counterclaims Challenged

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)."

Because.

[AltGrendel]

They are trying to set a precedence that runs in their favor.

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.

criminal charges?

[belmolis]

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:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point entirely. I'm not disputing the importance of the RIAA actions generally, but this particular story is pretty much about NOTHING (dressed up with some sensationalism about single mothers and the like). Nothing has been decided by any judge or jury. One side filed a tactical motion in an ongoing lawsuit, and the motion hasn't even been fully briefed yet (much less ruled upon). Is every procedural hiccup in these cases "newsworthy"?

thinkofthechildren

[iamacat]

Really. I can accept making a 10 year old testify as a witness in a murder case, to prevent the killer from striking again. But in a civil copyright case, in which she, as a minor, is not even accountable? Give me a break! The lawyers and executives involved should be charged with attempted harm to a minor.

Legal or Illegal?

[CannonballHead]

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.

• 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.
• Whether or not you like the RIAA, pirated music IS illegal, is it not? Whether or not this is a good way to go about catching illegally pirated music, that does not get rid of the fact that pirating music is illegal. Whether or not you're seven years old. Drunk driving is illegal at age seven, pirating music is illegal at age seven. Typical laws don't change based on your age. Punishment might, and culpability might to some degree, but it's not like you have to be 21 or older to illegal pirate music. Copyrights apply to minors.
• While the RIAA is consistently criticized (and perhaps rightly so), very few suggestions are made for protecting copyrighted music. I happen to be a musician (well, composer) and copyrights can be a rather helpful thing, because there are people that will steal and even promote it as their own, taking royalties or sales or whatever you like. Enforcing copyrights is something we have to do, we can't rely on "good human nature" because that fails quite a bit, regardless of your particular anthropological views.

Time for a barratry prosecution against the RIAA

[Animats]

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.

Re:Because.

[Borland]

Pirate Bay, anyone?

While I have sympathy for the distaste others might have for American legal exports, I gotta say that if you have the brass balls to call yourself "The Pirate Bay" and offer 95% illegal material...you probably don't have a lot of moral ground to stand on.

If our legal heft is threatening your iraqquagmire.co.uk website, then I think I'd feel the outrage a bit more.