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)."
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)
Anonymous Coward, dead at 15 (Score:5, Funny)
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!"
Re:If Dave Barry were here . . . (Score:5, Funny)
"I'll try the death by chocolate...oh, wait, the tort of outrage looks yummy!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If Dave Barry were here . . . (Score:4, Funny)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
"....customers AND producers who specifically try to avoid your brand of goods....."
Because I'm Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Consider Your Music Library (Score:5, Funny)
Only on Slashdot....
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course there is no way to mimic/spoof an IP address? My problem is the RIAA does not appear to always perform what is called "due diligence" in the legal world before suing. I may be wrong, I have been before and will be again...but, it seems to me that there are way too many cases where they have made huge assumptions and sued people based on those assumptions. They may also be v
Re: (Score:2)
Effectivly what they are doing is using litigation or more likely the threat of litigation in order to extort money from people.
They may also be violating the law in pursuing their agenda, in some
Re: (Score:2)
Also known as "giving the RIAA enough rope to hang themselves".
No wonder they want the counterclaim dismissed.
It appears to be the case that the RIAA dosn't want cases to actually go to court even when they are
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thinkofthechildren (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:thinkofthechildren (Score:5, Informative)
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: (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!!!
sig (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's the other way around. There's a decent memo on this subject (with regard to copyright infringement) on the EFF site, IIRC. The main issue, of course, is a combination of preemption and that merely being a parent of a minor child doesn't rise to the level of secondary infringement. If you're a plaintiff going up against a minor in such a suit, your best hope, if the parents w
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?
According to the rules of ethics, a person is only responsible for actions when they have a right corresponding to that action. For example, a person who has no right to decide if they possess a gun has no ethical responsibility for accidentally shooting someone with one. With children most of their basic human rights are held in abeyance until they reach their majority. Their parents and the state claim ownership of their rights and as such are ethically responsible for the consequences of actions that c
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:2)
Why? Remember, copyright suits are almost always civil. The copyright owner is suing for money damages and equitable remedies such as injunctions; it is not a state prosecution and imprisonment is not on the table. If the copyright holder couldn't sue, then they'd suffer the injuries without any kind of redress. That's not a fair solution.
There parents are responsible, not the
Re: (Score:2)
At some point children don't have the capacity to make rational decisions. In cases like copyright infringement and shoplifting the child should get a warning and a pass the first time. If there is a second or third time the parents could be held liable. If the parents can't or won't prevent their kid from continuing to do something illegal there should be some int
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think my feeling is that a child cannot be a criminal, because they cannot adequately differentiate right from wrong. If they cannot be a criminal than they should not be persecuted.
Not that their aren't problems with t
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
Re: (Score:2)
As a parent, I wouldn't want to be held responsible if my 10 year old stole a car. I raised my children not to do that, but that doesn't mean they won't. If they caused any damage, I guess it would go against my insurance, but believe me, that kid would be paying me back, and if it raised my insurance ra
Can they? (Score:2)
If such rules exist, then I would imagine that a similar protection might exist for young children in that the should not be compelled to bear witness against their parents/guardians. This would be especially important and it would be rather emotionally trauma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it is the RIAA we're talking about, and I wouldn't put it past them to use verbal trickery in order to confuse a witness into incriminating himself/herself or somebody else.
Re: (Score:2)
They can say anything they feel like though, since children can not take a legally binding oath to tell truth, all truth and nothing but the truth.
Also, minors can be found liable for copyright infringement
Music and software companies keep telling us that they don't sell songs and programs - they just sell us a contractual license to use them under restricted conditions. A minor is allowed to void any
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they can, and when they testify, they do. The issue is whether the witness is able to understand their responsibilities on the stand. You seem to be thinking of the ability to children to be bound to a contract, which is not the same thing as this. Besides, you misunderstand that. Contracts with minors are voidable, rather than void, there are generally
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Minors or in fact direct relatives and spouses should never, ever be forced to testify in any case, civil or criminal, that involves their family.
It forces parents to lie to their children or to hide what they're doing. It puts minors in a situation, where they have to harm their parents in order to comply with the law.
I live in germany and protecting families from situations like these was elevated to a constitution-level right after WW2. Guess why.
Re: (Score:2)
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:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
although i agree in principle, there are a few things you must consider. first, parents are busy enough providing for their children, and keeping them from HARM's way, they probably don't have time to make sure they're out of the RIAA's way.
your child driving analogy isn't as bad as you think (let's leave the drunk out of it since that wouldn't be necessary for it to be a dangerous act). first, most 7 yr olds simply do not have the same wherewith all that an adults do. second, and most importantly, does
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Parents (especially those on welfare) don't ever use a computer, let alone have a great knowledge of all what is happening on the computer, so they can't possibly guide their children, how much intent they might have to do so.
This is the USA, not Korea (although...) so you'll first have to prove that it was either the mom or the little one that installed Kazaa (consider that the computer could come fro
Re: (Score:2)
We can certainly argue that there might be better methods to affect change, but mass breaking of laws has happened in the past with some effect. Of course, we mostly are hearing about the people who didn't commit the tort being sued. One thing
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.
Re:Time for a barratry prosecution against the RIA (Score:2)
Astounding!
RIAA owns most So Cal politicians (Score:2)
The chance of the RIAA being tried for anything (let alone in barratry) in California is about zero.
They own (through their membership) most of LA and a good chunk of southern California.
Re: MPAA, maybe; RIAA, no way. (Score:2)
They own (through their membership) most of LA and a good chunk of southern California.
The movie industry is big, but the music industry isn't. Total US music industry sales are around $10 billion a year, and dropping, or so says the RIAA. Google, Microsoft, Apple, HP, and IBM each generate more revenue, and far more profits, than the entire music industry. The music industry doesn't employ many people, unlike the movie industry, so the employee votes aren't there.
The entertainment industry - yes (Score:2)
I was lumping the RIAA together with the entertainment industry. They would stand up for one another in any court case.
My point is the very small likelihood of prosecuting a portion of the entertainment industry in a Californian court.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like "voters"? That has worked _so_ well thus far.
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
MatRIxAA (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Most Slashdotters don't have any trouble not clicking on the articles.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? You must be new here! (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When has that *ever* been true?
Or, by 'nerd', do you mean people like you?
You seem to be acting like the sort of people nerds commonly accuse of oppresing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that you take the time to inform and update us on the state of affairs with an insight that we'd otherwise sorely lack.
I do believe that you are one of those people who will have an actual posi
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)