RIAA Countersued

[CyberPitz]

A woman who was sued by the Recording Industry of America for file-sharing has countersued the outfit for hacking.

Tanya Andersen, a 41-year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, has countersued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation. She is claiming hurt feelings and "outrage", and deceptive business practices.

According to court documents here, Anderson said the record industry has been abusing the law courts and waged a public relations and public threat campaign targeting file sharing.

She claims that the RIAA hired an outfit called MediaSentry to invade private home computers and collect personal information. Based on private information allegedly extracted from these personal home computers, the record companies have reportedly filed lawsuits against more than 13,500 anonymous "John Does".

She claims the record companies provide the personal information to Settlement Support Center, which engages in outlawed and deceptive debt collection and other illegal conduct to extract money from the people allegedly identified from the secret lawsuits.

She said that she has never downloaded or shared music online. She has not infringed on any of plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted interest. However, she has been a victim of the record companies’ public threat campaign.

The RIAA falsely claimed that Andersen had been an "unnamed" defendant who was being sued in federal court in the District of Columbia. She was never named in that lawsuit and never received service of a summons and complaint, she said.

When Andersen contacted Settlement Support Center, she was advised that her personal home computer had been secretly entered by the record companies’ agents, MediaSentry.

Apparently she had been up at 4:24am downloading "gangster rap" music under the login name “[email protected].” Andersen does not like "gangster rap", does not recognise the name "gotenkito", is not awake at 4:24 a.m. and has never downloaded music.

The Settlement Support Center threatened that if Andersen did not immediately pay them, the record companies would bring an expensive and disruptive federal lawsuit using her name and they would get a judgment for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Looks like this one will run for a while.

SOURCE: http://www.torrentspy.com/default.asp#RIAA Countersued - only source I got..I'm lazy and don't want to search.

 

[Raziaar]

RIAA can go to hell. Download a song if you agree. Download three if you want to stick it to them.

 

[CyberPitz]

RIAA can go to hell. Download a song if you agree. Download three if you want to stick it to them.

my 70 gigs of music will suffice. 69.1 gigs to be exact.

 

[poseyjmac]

that sucks to be falsely accused. although i feel no remorse for those who actually do pirate music and get sued by the RIAA, as they know what they are getting into.

 

[mortiz]

a 41 year old disabled mother and gangster rap don't really go together. I don't know what methods the RIAA use to collect the information on these alleged pirates, but it obviously doesn't work.

 

[Cormeh]

I hope she wins.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Damn right too.

RIAA can go to hell. Download a song if you agree. Download three if you want to stick it to them.

How about 4, 375? :O

 

[Icarusintel]

maybe this'll slow the greedy bastards down... though i wish it would kill their campaign altogether... some of us just donpt have the money to keep paying for entire albums that have 1 good song on the and 11 shitty songs...

 

[Murray]

my 70 gigs of music will suffice. 69.1 gigs to be exact.

I want your music.

 

[Raeven0]

maybe this'll slow the greedy bastards down... though i wish it would kill their campaign altogether... some of us just donpt have the money to keep paying for entire albums that have 1 good song on the and 11 shitty songs...

You can legally buy the one good song for less than an American dollar if you look in the right places.

 

[Icarusintel]

You can legally buy the one good song for less than an American dollar if you look in the right places.

but i loathe apple and iTunes

 

[JellyWorld]

I might have sympathized with their cause if they weren't so pushy (massive understatement) about it.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Admitted, RIAA are going the wrong way about things, but you really think the theft of music is justified? Some of the artists, I know, aren't going to miss the money. But new entrants to the music scene, those who are just starting out with nothing but an acoustic guitar and a dream - you-re basically taking their wages. One of the reasons music these days has become so bland and samey is because *real* new talent can't be proven as financially viable, because you're all going to pirate their work anyways.

some of us just donpt have the money to keep paying for entire albums that have 1 good song on the and 11 shitty songs...

You're listening to the wrong artists, then.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[DeusExMachina]

But why need money? If I was going to become a muscian (and know I'm never going to get picked up by a major label), I wouldn't expect a lot of money to come anyway. I'd just want people to listen to my music and hopefully enjoy it and take something away from it. That's what true artists want.

Plus, I download a few songs from a band to see if I like them (like most people do anyways) and then I'll buy their CD.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

But why need money?

Food and rent aren't free.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[JellyWorld]

I don't support the theft of music either, I buy all my music but I find it very hypocritical that the RIAA tries to claim the moral high ground when they are rampantly violating people's rights like this. If they want us to clean up their act they'd better clean up theirs too.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Food and rent aren't free.

-Angry Lawyer

I realize that, but as I said, the last thing a "true" muscian is going to see is a lot of money.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I realize that, but as I said, the last thing a "true" muscian is going to see is a lot of money.

Tell that to Bon Jovi

-Angry Lawyer

 

[DeusExMachina]

Damn Bon Jovi...

 

[Laivasse]

One of the reasons music these days has become so bland and samey is because *real* new talent can't be proven as financially viable, because you're all going to pirate their work anyways.

The RIAA isn't interested in innovating or proving different genres as financially viable though. Sales for artists signed to RIAA labels account for something like 90% of record sales in America, last I heard. A few bland, highly lucrative genres of the same manufactured music released over and over again is plenty enough for them.

Don't fall for this idea that the RIAA are fighting for in the interests of their poor artists either. Note that single artists can't join the RIAA, since it is an association of labels. Unless an artist is of a degree of popularity such that they can write their own cheque, then they will often be bound to a contract limiting to them to enjoying just a tiny percentage of the profit from their work anyway, by those same labels. Then you have to prove that 'piracy' actually hurts sales, which noone has actually done yet. The BPI (British equivalent of the RIAA, to all intents and purposes) enjoyed record album sales for 2 years in a row over 2003 & 2004, shifting something like 163,400,000 CDs. Looks like mp3 trading has really made paupers of BPI artists :| I don't think.

You will find that a lot of indie artists and smaller labels actually wholeheartedly encourage free trading of MP3's, because it means they can promote themselves without having to challenge the monopoly that RIAA artists have on the radio and TV.

You have to recognise what the RIAA is doing for the dirty tricks campaign it is, and whatever mp3 trading is, it isn't a force for stagnation.

edit - when I say "record album sales", I meant those sales BROKE records, as in being the highest sales figures in history, for 2 years in a row. http://www.cdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=1472

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Hey, I'm not supporting the RIAA. But that doesn't make piracy right.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Laivasse]

Noone has quite explained what's wrong with it either, though...

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Noone has quite explained what's wrong with it either, though...

The fact you're getting something that someone's selling without actually paying them for it?

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Laivasse]

The fact you're getting something that someone's selling without actually paying them for it?

-Angry Lawyer

That's just a sign of technology and the marketplace changing. When music started to become a big bucks industry there was nothing like the internet by which people could obtain music so easily. Technology has simply advanced and the industry hasn't kept up. Consumers dictate the market.

Note that I'm talking about downloading a few tracks here and there, not large-scale downloading of whole albums, which is fairly snidey, BUT which seems to be a fairly rare thing anyway going by those sales figures I posted, or at least it doesn't seem to be affecting sales. It seems that most true music lovers will trade mp3's in conjunction with paying for CDs in the real world, using p2p as a tool to investigate new music or quality check albums before buying. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[poseyjmac]

you think downloading a few tracks here and there is justified morally and lawfully but downloading whole albums is not?

so then, you wouldn't mind if someone took an little part of your paycheck every month, as long as they didn't take a big chunk, right?

the problem is thousands of people download and keep music under the guise of 'im just checking them out ill buy the cd, really!'. when we all know its far easier to just keep what we have and not spend money on something we know we can get away with.

 

[CyberPitz]

I have a SHITLOAD of music. And I don't say I'll buy the CD. I say, "If it's good, I'll buy it". I've bought about 8 CD's of music my entire life. Why so little? Because those are the only cd's I listen to enough to have bought. You think I roll through my 70 gigs alot? Hell no, random keeps playing the same shit over and over --; I justify it in, if I didn't download, I wouldn't buy it. EVER. So they are losing squat from me. It's the people who would buy it that are causing the bands to lose money. I don't care what people throw at me, "You're just stealing like them, you're causing the downfall of the music industry." **** you.

/rant

 

[Laivasse]

you think downloading a few tracks here and there is justified morally and lawfully but downloading whole albums is not?

I just said it was 'a bit snidey'. I have no real problem with large-scale downloading of entire albums, except that this can then be used by people to sell as their own product, which is immoral and nothing to do with musical appreciation - THAT is the only line I draw.

Download as much as you like - I'm not saying it wouldn't be justified morally. I'm fed up of people just creating morals out of nowhere in order to back up obsolete laws.

Copyright laws were originally formulated to protect individuals who create unique material. Those same laws are now being used by massive corporations to protect their profits, maintain their stranglehold over the music industry and STAGNATE it, almost the complete opposite.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Cyberpitz - agreed to an extent. I only download songs I wouldn't ever bother to buy.

 

[Raziaar]

Man... People are talking about downloading an entire album.


I kinda feel sick.... cause not too long ago, I downloaded a file which contained many albums of a single band! lol.

I rarely download though, just when i'm looking for one particular song.

 

[poseyjmac]

I justify it in, if I didn't download, I wouldn't buy it. EVER.

that justification doesn't stand up as its defeated easily, the 'if this then that' excuse has been proven wrong countless times even on this forum. but ill reiterate.

the fact is the theoretical situation where you don't download music is not possible right now, being that its so easy to download music today. the only way for your statement to be tested would be to live in a world where downloading music was not possible. as this is not possible, your if statement is not accurate because it can never be proven. as we know, our environment has an affect on our actions and you can't accurately gauge what your actions would be like in such a dramatically different situation.

for instance if someone was thinking back to 9/11 and trying to think what they would do if terrorists hijacked the plane they were on. they would say, yea id do this, id do that, but really when it comes down to it, things don't go the same way as they do in your head while sitting on a recliner eating pretzels. this is why that attempt at justification is a false one. but if you want to continue believing it, be my guest, but its very likely that you would buy the CD's if you lived in a world without downloading of music. its likely because humans have demonstrated that when they want something badly enough, they will get it one way or another.

It's the people who would buy it that are causing the bands to lose money.

i see. so the more music i pirate, the more money the bands get! i love this logic!

the RIAA's actions are a product of the pirates, plain and simple.a pirate saying 'screw you' to the RIAA is just as logical as a car thief saying 'screw you' to a cop.

 

[Zeus]

About time this happened...

 

[Laivasse]

that justification doesn't stand up as its defeated easily, the 'if this then that' excuse has been proven wrong countless times even on this forum. but ill reiterate

Hmm, I remember a thread about piracy with you in it before, although I don't recall you ever 'proving' anything with the above argument - iirc you flew into a berserk fanatic rage and cursed the moral fibre of all and sundry, causing everyone to leave the thread in awkward embarrassment similar to when an old relative wets themselves, but however you want to remember it is fine...

 

[Raziaar]

Hmm, I remember a thread about piracy with you in it before, although I don't recall you ever 'proving' anything with the above argument - iirc you flew into a berserk fanatic rage and cursed the moral fibre of all and sundry, causing everyone to leave the thread in awkward embarrassment, kind of like when an old relative wets themself, but however you want to remember it is fine...

People can change their views.

 

[poseyjmac]

insult me all you want, i have an unpopular view. my last post though is air tight. but by all means, if you want to try and refute it, do so. but saying im a poo poo head and what i said is doo doo doesn't really fly. but ill say this, no matter what you say, you cannot prove that if statement to be accurate as it is impossible.

 

[Pesmerga]

RIAA can go to hell. Download a song if you agree. Download three if you want to stick it to them.

Uploads are more dangerous than downloading

 

[Laivasse]

insult me all you want, i have an unpopular view. my last post though is air tight. but by all means, if you want to try and refute it, do so. but saying im a poo poo head and what i said is doo doo doesn't really fly. but ill say this, no matter what you say, you cannot prove that if statement to be accurate as it is impossible.

I don't think there's any real need to refute it - I can't prove what would happen in a hypothetical universe, any more than you can disprove it. When you take the argument that way, you're just taking it into philosophical ambiguity.

What needs to be 'proved' is that mp3 trading affects the music industry in any bad way. Argue against the sales figures I posted, which show the music industry to be thriving, despite massive popularity of file-sharing (and despite the bland and generic nature of music nowadays, but anyway).

 

[Angry Lawyer]

My position on this is pretty-much explained by my profession.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[poseyjmac]

I don't think there's any real need to refute it - I can't prove what would happen in a hypothetical universe, any more than you can disprove it. When you take the argument that way, you're just taking it into philosophical ambiguity.

the thing is i'm not claiming i can disprove what would happen in this universe. all that argument i explained does is prove that NO ONE can prove what would happen in that universe, which is why its a false excuse and a lie one tells himself so that he can sleep at night.

What needs to be 'proved' is that mp3 trading affects the music industry in any bad way. Argue against the sales figures I posted, which show the music industry to be thriving, despite massive popularity of file-sharing (and despite the bland and generic nature of music nowadays, but anyway).

well that can't be proven. but also it can't be proven that piracy DOESN'T affect the music industry in a 'bad way'

but define 'bad way' if you will.

and i have a question for you. can you agree that if it weren't for piracy, the music industry would be thriving even more? (im going somewhere with this)

 

[Pesmerga]

My position on this is pretty-much explained by my profession.

-Angry Lawyer

Side the guy with the biggest buldge in his pants? (His wallet, perverts)

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Side the guy with the biggest buldge in his pants? (His wallet, perverts)

Obviously.

-Angry Lawyer