RSSDefendant in RIAA suit files amended complaint
By Ed Oswald | Published March 14, 2008, 12:32 PM
Tanya Andersen refiled her lawsuit against the record industry body on Friday, which could open up RIAA's investigation techniques for all to see.
She filed the original lawsuit in August 2007, although a judge dismissed the case at a hearing on February 13 on a motion by the RIAA. Andersen was given 30 days to refile.
Her lawyer in the case, Lory Lybeck, did so on Friday. It puts the Recording Industry Association of America in the spot of having to defend the case on its merits: As part of the February ruling, the judge said that it would not hear any further motions to dismiss.
The onus is obviously still on Lybeck and Andersen to prove that the case is indeed worthy of going forward. If it does, RIAA's methods of taking on file sharers could be brought into the light.
Andersen charges that RIAA used unlicensed investigators to gather information and was in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
The new complaint will ask for information on how MediaSentry plays into the group's legal pushback against file sharers. Lybeck says the group's insistence upon keeping the subject under wraps raises doubts about its legality.
"It is very important for them to operate in secrecy because once their methodology is revealed, it will be obvious they committed a crime," he told Computerworld.
At one time, Andersen had fully cooperated with RIAA, allowing them to search her hard drive -- on which they found no evidence of wrongdoing. But instead of dropping the suit, they began to allege she used another computer for the file sharing.
She also claimed that the group began to harass her eight-year-old daughter, even going as far as attempting to call her at school to speak with her. Lybeck has said that the group continued its case even after it had been all but proven that they had the wrong person.
If Lybeck is successful in his efforts, he could also help out others being investigated by the RIAA through an injunction. The amendment complaint asks the court to prevent the group from using "illegal investigations" to sue file sharers. It is also seeking class-action status.
RIAA did not have much to say on the matter, only calling it "unfortunate" that Andersen has chosen to file, and hoping to "resolve the case in short order."
The only reason the illegal tactics haven't been called yet is because most of who they sue don't have the monetary means to uphold a lengthy court battle. Those with deep pockets will win most wars of attrition in our legal system.
I find it abhorent that the RIAA repeatedly tried to get in contact with the 8 year old child in question. This group gives the music industry and everyone that's associated with it a bad name.
Score: 0
|Fuc the RIAA & the MPAA! If I can access it and download it FREE, I won't pay a g** d*** red cent for anything!
Screw those old fat greedy bas****s that run a company that is gearded towards youth!
Score: 0
|She also claimed that the group began to harass her eight-year-old daughter, even going as far as attempting to call her at school to speak with her. Lybeck has said that the group continued its case even after it had been all but proven that they had the wrong person.
this is disgusting, i can not believe that they have the right to do such a thing, i thought there was laws to protect children from such things, for this alone i would take them to court, i'm surprised the school in question is not investigated this issue aswell, if someone tried to contact my 6 year old child at school i would go mad, surely this conduct is not allowed, well i can say here in the UK it's not, not sure about there thoguh,
don't suppose any one here could shed some light on this, as i am dismayed that they would go that far to want to talk to a child without consent, and without supervision from an adult,
if that is allowed there then i would have to ask what rights to young children have,
Score: 0
|they got as much rights as they got as much money.
Score: 0
|The RIAA does need to account for the continuing drop in CD sales - so their efforts are necessary while their methods may may suck.
I'm all for putting more money into the hands of the actual artists, musicians and song writers but not so much for the record companies.
I account the sales drop to 3 things, only one of which is being addresses by the RIAA. Music file sharing. It happens and really can not be stopped. That fight could be compared to ending gang violence.
#2 - lack of quality music. Over the last 5 years I've purchased maybe 12 CD's and all of them were released over 10 years ago. There is a lack of good music offered by new artists that might tempt me to purchase a CD released within the last 5 years.
#3 - Higher competition for the consumers media dollar. DVD's remain strong and now have the Blu-Ray to deal with. Video game sales are stronger than ever. The DVD and video game industries market right at the very people who might otherwise buy the new CD releases. There is a lot of marketing money involved but I do not recall seeing much come from the music industry.
If the RIAA wants to compete for those entertainment dollars then they should go and compete, (advertise, promote, offer something more than a disk, maybe offer good MUSIC), rather than simply concentrate on file sharing.
Added NOTE: One of the most popular video games of 2007, and now going into 2008, is Guitar Hero III. I've looked over all the songs in that game. Very few are from last last 5, or even 10, years.
Score: 0
|this does have them running scared a bit. but just a little bit... mainly because they feel they are totally justified in their tactics no matter how corrupt it is in the way they attain information. Much of which is a broad blanket clause of the patriot act, which is NOT suppose to be used for anything that is not Terrorist related. Of course the RIAA call all p2p users Cyber terrorists, but that was not the purpose for the act regardless.
The tactics used is very reminiscent of racketeering.. basically pay up our extortion now or we will humiliate you legally. And the problem is they have essentially been wrong on some occasions, but the burden of proof is so weak in their cases that they only have to say that the machine was on and the IP showed the file on your computer. I got news for you a talented IT person can find files Millions of IPs regardless of using a P2P network. Indeed they do not even have to prove that you had the file ever downloaded by one sole. just that at some point in some instance in some way that filename was visible on your IP. Thats it...
And media sentry themselves Host the files with their permission in order to entrap the people for downloading from them at times in order to have a starting point and get access to the p2p cloud of IPs to begin with.
So what i am saying is this is something they have in the past dropped cases over so as to not expose their operation. However anyone that tracks these companies activities with any regularity. Namely those that BLOCK all AntiP2P activity... Know full well what they do in order to get their information. And that has always been the problem.
Personally I feel the companies need to show REAL proof that Damages were done IE real profits lost... Not imaginary ones, Not Projected numbers. REAL Packet logs from the ISPs. Problem is to do that is immensely expensive and time consuming, sometimes more so then the cost of trial and possible rewards outcome. It entails actually retaining a warrant and accumulating Actual activity logs of illegal packets from said IPs. Then and only then is there sufficient proof that something was done at all. But this Minimal bit of information is RARELY retained by any ISP under privacy laws and the only time they DO retain it is when there is a warrant to do so. (normally in federal cases such as Child pornography, Not for the RIAA)
So that's the problem people have with the RIAA. They do not go after the criminal syndicates that are out on the streets selling these things for profit. THOSE are pirates. They go after easy targets to set an example of, that have no chance in hell of retaining good lawyers to defend them against some of the flimsiest accusations possible. And if by chance they ever come up with a good lawyer they run and drop the lawsuit as happened in this case. Cause they want to protect their ongoing business tactic of intimidation of the public.
Problem is This time the accused fought back at the very accusation with counterclaims of violations of civil rights.
Just for the record I want to refresh everyone to the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The problem is these searches happen without probable cause, without warrant, and basically become a witch hunt for non-specific files possibly available and not proven to been in violation of until after seized. Maybe...
There in is the problem. And THAT is why the RIAA MPAA and all AntiP2P groups SHOULD be worried with eh outcome of this case. Personally I hope it goes to the federal Supreme Court for yet another fair use provision ruling as Betamax was for the analog age. It is what the Industry fears happens with Digital anything and have done everything possible to avoid that outcome again. Cause at that point they loose control and their scare tactic upon the public is proven wrong on every front.
Score: 0
|She oughta be in Gitmo, getting some of their warm welcomes with the usual love & affection.
g**d*** terrorists & commies trying to subvert our freedoms by making stoopid suits, who cares if she's not guilty, this is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things that matter.
And, whilst I'm at it I would like to offer my sinceerest congrat's to RIAA for their techniques & methodology, couldna done it better myself!
Score: 0
|Touche' for Anderson! I hope Anderson & her lawyer stick it to the RIAA, those greedy old bas****s anyway!
The RIAA shutting down Napster & filing suits against their customers recently won the prestigeious award of the biggest music blunder in history bumping the lable that didn't sign the Beatles in 1962 to second place! This just shows you how bad the fukced up and how ashamed & embarrased they really are!
DON'T PURCHASE ANY MUSIC CD'S BUT CONTINUE TO STEAL MUSIX OFF OF THE INTERNET!
Score: 0
|Best of luck to her.
I hope the RIAA gets what's coming to it.
Score: 0
|If the gal's IP address was spoofed by someone else, that would account for the RIAA saying it was another computer - but that doesn't mean it was hers. Someone has to reveal how the RIAA does its investigations. If it's illegal, fry 'em and invalidate every past judgment in their favor. I'd also like to find out who's responsible for using P2P's to spread viruses that eat media files. Three guesses there.
Score: 0
|MPAA?
Score: 0
|Motion Picture Association Of America. Also fighting piracy.
Score: 0
|**** RIAA and everything it stands for. Good luck to everyone who fights them. "Unfortunate," lol. Those idiots crack me up.
Score: 0
|What if the court find RIAA in wrong doing? What going to happen? As with any corporation, nothing is going to happen. They probably just fired (cough cough, relocate) a few people, and then business as usual.
Score: 0
|if it becomes class action suit RIAA will owe $$ to all the innocent people they illegally sued.
**** RIAA.
Score: 0
|They appeal and appeal and appeal. Till the victim can not afford to continue. That has been what they have done in EVERY past instance. They have the deep pockets. the victims do not. and just like a crooked slot machine they NEVER pay out. EVER. Even if they loose, they will Never pay out damages to her. That is fact. and trust me they will do everything in their power to keep it OUT of the supreme court venue for all time. They can not afford another betamax in their opinion.
Score: 0
|She doesn't give up and goes for a second shot and it's "unfortunate". Yet, that never stopped the RIAA from doing the same.
Score: 0
|Ha...yea it's "unfortunate" she decided to file...LOL that's a good one RIAA.
Score: 0
|Good Luck to them! Screw RIAA
Score: 0
|