RIAA, Safenet Sued For Malicious Prosecution

DaveAtFraud writes "Tanya Anderson, the single mother from Oregon previously sued by the RIAA — which dropped the case just before losing a summary judgement — is now suing the RIAA and their hired snoop Safenet for malicious prosecution. (Safenet was formerly known as MediaSentry.) Anderson is asserting claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. A reader at Groklaw has already picked up that she is seeking to have the RIAA forfeit the copyrights in question as part of the settlement (search the page for '18.6-7')."

Give up the copyrights?

[Brian Gordon]

Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country?

Re:Give up the copyrights?

[r_jensen11]

My uneducated guess would be that giving up the copyrights would be a publicity stunt, and that she's actually looking to settle out of court.

Hope she has money

[ducomputergeek]

Because I think the RIAA can afford to keep this in legal limbo land for a while. Even so, it's nice to see someone go after the RIAA on RICO because there have been instances where they have crossed lines in my opinion. That being said, giving up the copyrights aren't going to happen because the RIAA doesn't hold them. They just represent the folks who do.

What really needs to happen is to get a couple of the hawkish Attourny Generals, like NY's, involved and looking into the RIAA's actions. They, actually, have some power to do something about the RIAA's tactics.

Re:Give up the copyrights?

[Stormx2]

I don't think so. The pie is high now - I think it is intended to show that the RIAA isn't the only party capable of an all-out offense. As most of the claims by the RIAA are frivolous anyway, this might put the claims in perspective, at least in the eyes of the public and hopefully in the eyes of the judge. It isn't about winning with this point, it's about making the legal system reconsider some well-defined boundries in what is acceptable for the RIAA to do.

I hope it works (:

I'm beginning to think the tide is turning on the RIAA.

Finally someone brings up RICO

[badfrog]

I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought the RICO act into this. It's what finally stopped DirecTV from suing everyone that bought a Smartcard reader.

Re:Give up the copyrights?

[u-235-sentinel]

Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country?

If they broke the law then yes. She expects the courts to uphold the law. Besides, since they are so rich, they can afford to pay when they violate the laws they claim to follow.

Re:Finally someone brings up RICO

[ad0le]

Keep in mind, in civil cases (such as this one), there are many hurdles in obtaining a judgment in correlation with the RICO act. Point being, it's not that easy. The RIAA is more concerned with their technique for accusing people remaining legally sound than being pummeled with a RICO civil case.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[TimHunter]

Hmmm...I have mod points, but instead of just clicking Troll I'll assume you're serious and respond that way. Read the FA and tell me this isn't about extortion, plain and simple. It is also about deterrence, in the sense of the RIAA trying to deter people from defending themselves against baseless charges. The RIAA have no case whatsoever against this woman. Never did. At this point they're simply protecting their techniques for suing anybody anytime on the flimsiest of evidence. This woman has good lawyers and they recognize that she is not only innocent, she's *so* innocent that her case has good chances for setting precedent. With a good, solid precedent, other lawyers with other clients will have an easier time defending themselves.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[grcumb]

Despite what groklaw may say they arent going after people that they dont have fairly good cases against.

Groklaw is irrelevant. The RIAA were dead wrong in this case, and now she wants them to pay for their mistake. She has every right to do so. That's how the legal system works in the US.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[jorghis]

And how are they breaking the law? They are going through the proper legal channels. They have lots of expensive lawyers making sure they are complying with the law, and despite what you may read on Groklaw, they really arent doing anything illegal. I suppose you could try to make some argument about how looking at what someone is sharing on a P2P network is illegal somehow, but I think thats a huge stretch. I am sure there are some other technicalities that I am unaware of that could be stretched if you really tried hard to make it look like they were technically violating the law somehow. But at the very least they are complying with the spirit of copyright law imho.

Re:How to avoid a jury trial/force a settlement?

[BradleyUffner]

All I know is, if I'm a juror, those copyrights are G-O-N-E

Which is why you would never be on the jury, because you have already made up your mind about the outcome.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[Kythe]

It is not extortion because extortion is done to make money.

It is, indeed. And threatening people who can't defend themselves unless they pay $4000 sounds to me an awful lot like a moneymaking scheme.

Just because it serves the dual purpose of "deterring" copyright violation doesn't mean it isn't extortion.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[Anonymous Coward]

The punishment IS what fits the crime. You are looking at it as a REWARD for the person bringing suit. It is, in fact, a PUNISHMENT for the person defending the suit. If RIAA loses the case and then is "punished" with a meager fine, they will have no real incentive to change their extortionist business tactics. MONEY or the loss thereof, is all these megaconglomerates can understand.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[kentmartin]

I am not American, nor a lawyer, but my understanding is that they are doing a couple of things which very much violate the spirit of the law.

First, they file John Doe lawsuits, then use the discovery privileges they attain as a result of having those lawsuits filed to gather more information. As soon as the necessary information is gathered, the drop the original lawsuit (and offer settlement or go to court for a real lawsuit etc). The important thing here is that the John Doe lawsuit is never meant to be anything other than an abuse of process to give them wider investigative powers - definitely a violation of the spirit of the law.

Secondly, you get a knock on the door with a lawsuit from a multimillion (billion?) dollar company with the lawyers to match. Whether you've done something wrong or not, the temptation will be to buy the next couple of years of your life back by forking over 2 or 3 grand - the alternative is to fight for a year or 2 in court at great risk and expense... I think we'd all accept that the US litigation system favours he with the deepest pockets - so right or wrong, you still stand a shot of losing.. they know most folks will not take the risk for a couple of grand - that makes it extortion as plain as the hairs on my arse.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[Bastardchyld]

Keep in mind that the way the RIAA and the music corporations are setup the RIAA will not make money. They will be operated at a loss. The music companies are the ones awarded the settlements since the hold the copyrights. Besides lawyers are relatively cheap when they are on salary. Consider that once the lawyers are on the books they might as well be suing people so they can bring in some money. So while you are correct that the RIAA is not "making money" that is not their purpose. They are there to make money for the record labels. They even say so on their site "The RIAA is an organization committed to helping the music business thrive." http://www.riaa.com/faq.php [riaa.com]

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[DrJimbo]

This woman should just leave it alone, she already caught a break with the charges being dropped.

WTF? They sued her and tried to ruin her life even after they knew they had no credible evidence against her and you think it was her lucky day when they dropped their case right before the judge was about to throw it out of the court anyway on summary judgment?

If someone intentionally runs you down with their car are you lucky if they run away when the cops arrive? (for the metaphorically impaired: I'm equating the cops arriving with the impending summary judgments that led the MAFIAA to drop their case). Wouldn't you try to sue them for you medical bills? How is that any different from her suing them for the legal bills they caused her to incur to defend herself against their bogus charges?

Re:Hope she has money

[Planesdragon]

I'll take it as a general rule that it is better to go into court with a rifle than a shotgun.

Nope. It's better go in with a shotgun and a carton of videotape. Rifles are for D.A's, programmers, and writers. When you're wronged, you want to slap as many people as you can.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you don't realize that a lot of these operations aren't run by actual lawyers. Any monkey can cut and paste a robo-litigation, and the actual paid lawyers don't get involved unless it hits a courtroom.

That's the insidious beauty of it all...

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[QuantumG]

It should also be clear to anyone with a brain that this is what the RIAA means when they say they are going to "educate" the public. I already know a lot of people who won't go near P2P programs because of these tactics.. regardless of the fact that we're in another country and the RIAA don't "service our area". The education program is working.

Re:Hope she has money

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not see the RIAA tactics as extortion, strong-arming, and other organized crime tactics, you are either someone who was recently unfrozen for the past 30 years or socially challenged.

It IS organized crime plain and simple. Just because they abuse the courts and lawyers to strong arm and extort money out of people does not make it anything different. They are stopping short of outright murder, but I bet that if you leave them unchecked long enough that will be on the plate soon, people "accidentally" killed during a RIAA raid.

I strongly suggest you study the basics of right and wrong, Obviousally your parents did not teach you those basics.

RIAA and Record companies ARE in FACT organized criminals. They should be put away for their crimes against America, their abuses of taxpayer resources, and their outright extortion of families. They know for a fact that what they are doing is wrong, they are doing it because it's profitable.

Just like drug dealers, mafia bosses and roving gangs in major cities. The Executives are no better than the leaders of the Crips or Bloods.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[buxton2k]

Hell, old school Mafia protection rackets also serve the purpose of "deterring" people. Deterring them from living their lives in peace without paying money to the Mafia.

"Such a nice shop you've got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it, you know what I mean?"

And since the RIAA lawsuit's boil down to:

"Such a nice house you've got there. Be a shame if you were to lose it in, say, a lawsuit by a multinational cartel against your family. Now, how about an out of court settlement for a few thousand, and you never talk to anyone about this, capische?"

it's basically the same thing.

I would have probably modded you down too...

[LinDVD]

The RIAA has gone after all kinds of people, dead and alive, using techniques that simply border on unethical. Corporate bullying, in some cases. In addition, copyright infringement isn't theft. It may be a crime, but it is not the same thing as physical theft-the RIAA always claims it is.

I think I would have modded you troll or overrated if I had mod points based on your original comment.

There may be something positive to say about the RIAA, but this particular subject isn't one of them. Oh, and neither are their efforts to attempt to deep-six internet radio, and then there is the DMCA...yeah, the RIAA doesn't have a lot of good karma, IMHO.

Re:Give up the copyrights?

[jombeewoof]

Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country?

If they broke the law then yes. She expects the courts to uphold the law. Besides, since they are so rich, they can afford to pay when they violate the laws they claim to follow.

Spelling correction,
you meant to say
Besides, since they are so rich, they can afford to pay when they violate the laws they write.

It's an easy enough mistake to make.

Re:Give up the copyrights?

[dosquatch]

More importantly, does she think that a trade association owns the copyrights?

No, she doesn't, BUT, the RIAA is an agent acting on behalf of the label. In that capacity, not only is the RIAA liable for their behavior, the label is on the hook as well. If the RIAA claims this not the case, then all legal actions brought by the RIAA for infringement are falsely represented and that places them on a completely different hook for completely different violations of the law.

Either which way they try to wiggle, this is not a happy place for them, which means it's a very happy place for the rest of us.

Re:Hope she has money

[ari_j]

There's more to it than that. In most of the U.S., you are forced to go into court with a shotgun because you are only allowed one shot. Rather than taking your chances on one well-placed shot, you want to hit all potential targets at once to increase your overall expected outcome.

Re:I would have probably modded you down too...

[jorghis]

So you would have modded it troll/overrated just because you disagree with it and think the RIAA "doesn't have a lot of good karma"? Dont you see anything fundamentally wrong with that? Arent peer moderated discussions supposed to foster intelligent debate, not just modding down anything that the majority disagrees with?

Re:Give up the copyrights?

[Doctor High]

"...and here comes the Libertarian trolls to flame me to death..."

Fixed your typo!

I don't agree with every idea of Libertarianism, but I certainly consider myself a Libertarian. I'm very excited by this case and very much hope that she wins against the RIAA. No company has the right to harass individuals in the way that the RIAA has been doing. I don't have the links handy, but I recall the automated ceases and desist notices, as well as some very questionable proof used in past cases. The RIAA is throwing its weight around and it's infringing upon individuals' rights. It's time they got burned for that.

Depends...

[LinDVD]

...on how you word your statement. If it had been super aggressive (such as: "the RIAA is correct, and consumers are fucking stupid"), I would have modded you down immediately. However, in the context of the point you are trying to convey-a dissenting opinion, I don't think I would have taken you below "1", just because you are trying to come across as not just an RIAA shill. Now if you had made a pro-RIAA statement, and actually cited a bunch of supporting arguments in the form of hyperlinks and quotes (with the original posting), then it's no longer just trying to make a simple statement and the thought of modding you down would have never crossed my mind-not that I had any mod points to begin with of course.

As someone else pointed out, it's better to try to educate someone, than to immediately assume they are just wrong.

That being said, mod points can be emotional in nature...which is just a side effect of having them. Maybe this is a good example of that. As a general rule, to avoid being tagged as a troll/overrated, making statements that show some thinking involved is the best defense.

Note-I do not download songs via P2P, I buy used CD's from Amazon and such, so while I have no sympathy for the RIAA, AFAIK, I also do not put myself at high risk. I get my MP3's via NNTP and a few internet-based vendors, but not iTunes...yet.

Re:This woman should just leave it alone...

[CycoChuck]

Your statement shows me the sad state of the educational system when they do not teach basic law or (apparently) how to research and read. This woman is one of many that has to deal with the RIAA in this way. She is the first to actually fight back. She was wrongfully accused, and therefore had the right in the US legal system to get compensation for that. As for the RIAA doing something illegal, how is knocking at your door demanding $4000 or you'll be sued and might have to spent two to four times that defending yourself not extortion? Its just like a mobster demanding $1000 for "protection" or you might loose $10000 repairing the damage.

You're kidding!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

This got modded to +5 Insightful? I knew it was a problem (see my sig), but seriously, this guy called us moderates "corporo-fascist trolls" for crying out loud. And here's me thinking that trolls were people who deliberately blocked discussion, or expressed their opinions in an inflammatory way (e.g. the parent post), not people who legitimately disagree with the person's viewpoint.

For shame, Slashdot, for shame.

Re:Give up the copyrights?

[Wayne247]

I think a similar claim could have been said about the lawsuits against tobacco companies some time ago...

Re:She's going to win, too

[CodeBuster]

The MAFIAA will attempt to drag this out as long as possible (10-20 years probably) all the while dangling a settlement worth tens of millions of dollars in front of her. It would take a *very* principled person to go through that, even though she is in the right, while forgoing all of that money in the meantime for an uncertain reward (the legal system sometimes delivers surprises after all). It may be impossible for her anyway unless she gets some legal help from the likes of EFF or Groklaw behind her to see the case through to the end. I would like to see the MAFIAAs toes held to the fire as much as anyone, but as the parent has said this is a shady organization that resorts to questionable tactics. I wouldn't put it past them to engage in a campaign of threatening phone calls, scary surveillance people, and assorted harassments (ala the big tobacco lawsuits) to 'convince' her to accept the settlement. If I were her, I would be seeking some dependable bodyguards to fend off the MAFIAA goon squads.

Just a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading through a lot of these comments here you get people who are attempting to "defend" the RIAA actions, whilst i am not a citizen of the USA. From previous threads and many MANY articles read on these copyright suits, it does seem pretty evident that what the RIAA are doing is 'shady'. Now that a offensive is being taken to there camp, There are still people who for their own reasons discourage taking the 'fight' to the RIAA.

Now for the purpose of my $0.02. . . get your Tin Hats Ready

The RIAA who do not seem to embrace a newer distribution model for music ( for their own reasons) seem not to be technophobic, evident by utilizing companies such as SafeNet. Is it not possible they employ a similar method in attempting to shape forums which are appear to not work in their favour ( pay people to put a certain view on a high traffic sitelike digg or Slashdot).

I guess that while you never really know who posted the comment you need to consider their bias. . . . .

what is my bias, Not particularly fond of the RIAA not anti them either, however i find what they seem to be doing of late ethically questionable to the point where when purchasing music if i see they have anything to do with my music purchase i avoid it. I guess i vote with my wallet . . . . . .

Re:Give up the copyrights?

[rtb61]

The ultimate revenge is to force it through the courts right to the end, it doesn't matter about the payout but mainly to set a precendent that everybody else attacked by the RIAA can use to beat them in court. A revenge that will last for years to come.

Re:Give up the copyrights?

[loganrapp]

The RIAA has been "crumbling" for years. It just looks like them being stupid and getting smacked on the wrist, again.

Let's not believe something's happening just because we really really want it to.

Re:How to avoid a jury trial/force a settlement?

[jaredmauch]

I believe that you will need to get someone from the Department of Justice (either Oregon or Federal) to press charges, you can't turn a civil case into a criminal one. I doubt either of them will, but this does look like it is gift-wrapped for them. If you believe the case should be prosecuted, you should contact the local DoJ offices in Oregon.

Re:You're kidding!

[Moryath]

Been on Slashdot long?

The moderation system has issues - that being the human tendency to claim that any conflicting viewpoint, no matter whether it's expressed in a sane manner or not, is "trolling" or otherwise needs to be censored.

We have meta-moderation to try to help, but all that does is show that abuse exists; it comes far too late to reverse it properly.

Re:Finally someone brings up RICO

[Kythe]

Actually, the filing does allege that MediaSentry/SafeNet broke the law, and the RIAA knew about it.

Re:Give up the copyrights?

[Courageous]

I think that her attorney may be able to get some traction on the claims of state and federal RICO charges, and suspect the RIAA and associated organizations are going to really get hurt by this one. At first glance, this appears to be a real stinger of a lawsuit. Reading the lawsuit makes it clear that far more than a few copyrights are on the line. The RIAA has been formally challenged to a battle to the death.

C//

Re:Read the whole lawsuit - WOW

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I find it interesting that not one person in IT (except for those that actually had illegal songs on the sys - they usually were admins running repos for p2p anyway) have been sued by the RIAA. I can't help but wonder if these vultures don't reseach their victim with the explicit notion of avoiding people with technical background (save the admin running a music p2p sys).

I personally don't think it's an accident, but I think it's attributable to the facts that

-all the cases are based on FastTrack, which technically sophisticated file sharers apparently haven't been using for years

--no technically sophisticated person bent on copyright infringement would be using his own computer, his own internet access account, his own wireless signal, etc.

--any technically sophisticated person engaged in 'copyright piracy' would probably be using dummies, zombies, slaves, whatever... and would not be using his or her own computer.

In other words, the RIAA's campaign is not geared towards catching serious copyright infringers; it is geared towards disrupting people's lives and making a lot of noise and causing a lot of pain. The RIAA itself has termed it a "driftnet" strategy. See ACLU brief in Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com]. But if it's a driftnet, it's a pretty strange driftnet.... because the one thing it is NOT designed to catch is the 'copyright pirate' the RIAA professes to be 'angling' for.