Monday, October 03, 2005

Oregon RIAA Victim Fights Back; Sues RIAA for Electronic Trespass, Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse, Invasion of Privacy, RICO, Fraud

ATLANTIC V. ANDERSEN

This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for. 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, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.

Ms. Andersen's counterclaims demand a trial by jury.

Ms. Andersen made the following allegations, among others:


1. For a number of years, a group of large, multinational, multi-billion dollar record companies, including these plaintiffs, have been abusing the federal court judicial
system for the purpose of waging a public relations and public threat campaign targeting digital file sharing activities. As part of this campaign, these record companies retained 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.”

2. The anonymous “John Doe” lawsuits are filed for the sole purpose of information farming and specifically to harvest personal internet protocol addresses from internet service providers.

3. After an individual’s personal information is harvested, it is given to the record companies’ representatives and the anonymous “John Doe” information farming suits are then typically dismissed.

4. The record companies provide the personal information to Settlement Support Center, which engages in prohibited and deceptive debt collection activities and other illegal conduct to extract money from the people allegedly identified from the secret lawsuits. Most of the people subjected to these secret suits do not learn that they have been “sued” until demand is made for payment by the record companies’ lawyers or Settlement Support Center.....

5. Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited income from Social Security.

6. Ms. Andersen has never downloaded or distributed music online. She has not infringed on any of plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted interest.....

7. Ms. Andersen has, however, been the victim of the record companies’ public threat campaign. The threats started when the record companies falsely claimed that Ms. 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.

8. Neither did Ms. Andersen receive any timely notice that the suit even existed. That anonymous suit was filed in mid-2004. Ms. Andersen first learned that she was being “sued” when she received a letter dated February 2, 2005, from the Los Angeles, California, law firm Mitchell Silverberg & Knupp, LLP. The LA firm falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had downloaded music, infringed undisclosed copyrights and owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ms. Andersen was understandably shocked, fearful, and upset. ....

9. After receiving the February 2, 2005 letter, Ms. Andersen contacted the record companies’ “representative,” which turned out to be Settlement Support Center, LLC. This company was formed by the record companies for the sole purpose of coercing payments from people who had been identified as targets in the anonymous information farming suits. Settlement Support Center is a Washington State phone solicitation company which engages in debt collection activities across the country.

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

11. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had “been viewed” by MediaSentry downloading “gangster rap” music at 4:24 a.m. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had used the login name “gotenkito@kazaa.com.” Ms. Andersen does not like “gangster rap,” does not recognize the name “gotenkito,” is not awake at 4:24 a.m. and has never downloaded music.

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

13. Ms. Andersen explained to Settlement Support Center that she had never downloaded music, she had no interest in “gangster rap,” and that she had no idea who “gotenkito” was.

14. Ms. Andersen wrote Settlement Support Center and even asked it to inspect her computer to prove that the claims made against her were false.

15. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

16. Instead of investigating, the record company plaintiffs filed suit this against Ms. Andersen. F. The Record Companies have no Proof of Infringement.

17. Despite making false representations to Ms. Andersen that they had evidence of infringement .... plaintiffs knew that they had no factual support for their claims.

18. No downloading or distribution activity was ever actually observed. None ever occurred. Regardless, the record companies actively continued their coercive and deceptive debt collection actions against her. Ms. Andersen was falsely, recklessly, shamefully, and publicly accused of illegal activities in which she was never involved.

Ms. Andersen further alleged:

20. Entering a person’s personal computer without their authorization to snoop around, steal information, or remove files is a violation of the common law prohibition against trespass to chattels.

21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to break into Ms. Andersen’s personal computer (and those of tens of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersen’s permission to inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms. Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was anonymously sued.

22. According to the record companies, the agent, Settlement Support Center used the stolen private information allegedly removed from her home computer in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Anderson into paying thousands of dollars. ....

Under the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) it is illegal to break into another person’s private computer to spy, steal or remove private information, damage property, or cause other harm.

26. Ms. Andersen regularly used her personal computer to communicate with friends and family across the country and for interstate e-commerce. Ms. Andersen had password protection and security in place to protect her computer and personal files from access by others.

27. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to bypass Ms. Andersen’s computer security systems and break into her personal computer to secretly spy and steal or remove private information. MediaSentry did not have her permission to inspect, copy, or remove her private computer files. It gained access secretly and illegally.

28. According to the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, used this stolen private information in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Andersen into paying thousands of dollars. ....

31. According to the record companies, Ms. Andersen’s personal computer was invaded by MediaSentry after she was identified with a nine digit code (an Internet Protocol Address (“IPA”)) obtained from the anonymous information farming lawsuits. MediaSentry did not have permission to inspect Ms. Andersen’s private computer files. It gained access only by illegal acts of subterfuge.

32. The record companies’ agent has falsely represented that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment associated with plaintiffs’ claims and public relations campaign.

33. The record companies have used this derogatory, harmful information to recklessly and shamefully publicly accuse Ms. Andersen of illegal activities without even taking the opportunity offered by Ms. Andersen to inspect her computer. .....

36. Despite knowing that infringing activity was not observed, the record companies used the threat of expensive and intrusive litigation as a tool to coerce Ms. Andersen to pay many thousands of dollars for an obligation she did not owe. The record companies pursued their collection activities and this lawsuit for the primary purpose of threatening Ms. Andersen (and many others) as part of its public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.

37. The record companies have falsely represented and pleaded that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading and distribution of copyrighted audio recordings. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment.....

40. The record companies knowingly represented materially false information to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to extort money from her.

41. For example, between February and March 2005, the record companies, through their collection agent Settlement Support Center, falsely claimed that they had proof that Ms. Andersen’s IPA had been “viewed” downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files for which it sought to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars. This statement was materially false. Ms. Andersen never downloaded or distributed any audio files nor did the record companies or any of their agents ever observe any such activity associated with her personal home computer.....

49. Despite having never observed any downloading or distribution associated with Ms. Andersen’s personal home computer and despite refusing Ms. Andersen’s offer to allow an inspection of her own computer, the record companies wrongfully continued their improper debt collection activities against her.....

50. The record companies pursued debt collection activities for the inappropriate purpose of illegally threatening Ms. Andersen and many thousands of others. This tortious abuse was motivated by and was a central part of a public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.

51. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit the debt collection activity against her because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

52. The record companies were aware of Ms. Andersen’s disabilities and her serious health issues. Settlement Support Center knew that its conduct would cause extreme distress in Ms. Andersen. As a result of defendant’s conduct, Ms. Andersen suffered severe physical and emotional distress and health problems.

53. The record companies’ conduct resulted in damages, including harm to Ms. Andersen’s health and property in an amount to be specifically proven at trial......

55. Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act prohibits those in trade or commerce from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in the course of business with consumers. ORS 646.605 et seq.

56. The record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, is a company doing business in Washington which was established to engage in debt collection activities in manystates, including Washington and Oregon.

57. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies’ agent made false and deceptive statements to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to mislead, threaten, and coerce her into paying thousands of dollars.

58. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies’ agent has made similar false and deceptive statements to many other residents of Washington and Oregon, and across the country. The public interest has been and continues to be directly impacted by plaintiffs’ deceptive practices.

59. The record companies’ conduct resulted in damages and harm to Ms. Andersen and her property in an amount to be specifically proven at trial. ....

61. The Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act prohibits companies from engaging in organized racketeering or criminal activities. ORS 166.715 et seq.

62. As fully set forth above, the record companies hired MediaSentry to break into private computers to spy, view files, remove information, and copy images. The record companies received and transmitted the information and images to Settlement Support Center. As the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center then falsely claimed that the stolen information and images showed Ms. Andersen’s downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files. The record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Anderson owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to coerce and extort payment from her.

63. The record companies directed its agents to unlawfully break into private computers and engage in extreme acts of unlawful coercion, extortion, fraud, and other criminal conduct.

64. The record companies and their agents stood to financially benefit from these deceptive and unlawful acts. Proceeds from these activities are used to fund the operation of the record companies’ continued public threat campaigns.

65. These unlawful activities were not isolated. The record companies have repeated these unlawful and deceptive actions with many other victims throughout the United States.

Answer and counterclaim.
(Alternate link)

Ms. Andersen is represented by:
Lory R. Lybeck
Lybeck Murphy, LLP
500 Island Corporate Center
7525 SE 24 Street
Mercer Island, WA 98040-2336
(206) 230-4255
lrl@lybeckmurphy.com

322 comments:

1 – 200 of 322   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Good for her! Hopefully, if she wins, then it'll finally put a nail in the coffin of illegal activities that the RIAA is doing right now.

Anonymous said...

What does the fact that she's disabled have to do with this lawsuit?

Anonymous said...

It's good PR

Anonymous said...

RIAA, HACK THEM, they illegaly entering your computers

Peter said...

Good for her!

I hope she wins, so that the RIAA can see that what they're doing wastes our time and the money they're so keen on preventing the loss of through piracy.

Anonymous said...

There was another case last year in which an individual fought back against the RIAA. That case quietly went away, and there was no mention of a settlement. Please MAKE SOME NOISE about this case! Let the public see the tangled web of lies the recording industry has cast, and make sure that records of this case remain open for reference by all of the future victims they will undoubtably harrass and intimidate in their efforts to regain lost revenue from their failing business practices.

In an age when the common people are routinely intimidated and threatened by corporations whom they cannot possibly afford to face in a court of law, one can't help but believe that justice is dead.

- Shdwdrgn

Anonymous said...

She is going to loose. She has a horrible lawyer!

I feel sorry for her - first she was duped by the RIAA, now by this lawyer.

As someone with a technical background I can tell you that almost every paragraph in the lawsuit is full of errors. Even if she has a real case, it's going to be drowned out of existance by this.

She is worried that RIAA hacked into her computer - well guess what: if they had hacked they would have seen no downloads, and left her alone. Since they think there actually were downloads it's proof that they never hacked her machine!

Either way she looses.

This lawuit should worry about extortion, and lies and stuff, but not about hacking (which I can tell you right now: never happened).

If someone is tracked by a file sharing program, it's not via hacking. By defenition file sharing programs announce this kind of stuff.

This could be a case of mistaken identity and extortion to get money - but that's not what the focus is here.

Anonymous said...

She is going to loose. She has a horrible lawyer!

I feel sorry for her - first she was duped by the RIAA, now by this lawyer.

As someone with a technical background I can tell you that almost every paragraph in the lawsuit is full of errors. Even if she has a real case, it's going to be drowned out of existance by this.


Um, sort of like your oafish syntax and inability to spell.

Anonymous said...

I hope she becomes an exceptionally wealthy lady!

Anonymous said...

"As someone with a technical background I can tell you that almost every paragraph in the lawsuit is full of errors. Even if she has a real case, it's going to be drowned out of existance by this."


As someone with a technical background, you should have seen the link to the original .PDF filing, read it, and realized that the "full of errors" was an unfortunate, computerized repurposing of the original content.

As for the Ms. Andersen:
GIVE 'EM HELL!

adam@intechtoday.com

Kye Lewis said...

"As someone with a technical background, you should have seen the link to the original .PDF filing, read it, and realized that the "full of errors" was an unfortunate, computerized repurposing of the original content."

What? The PDF document says what the blog says. I must say I am slightly worried about the allegation that MediaSentry illegally gained access to the computer; if the computer in question was running peer to peer sharing software, then the computer would have been actively inviting connections. If she wasn't running any peer to peer software, then MediaSentry never saw her computer, but someone else's.

The suit does have some good points, such as that in many of these cases it appears the RIAA and the recording companies do not have good solid evidence to back their claims. It'd be interesting to see which way the court leans on the "hacking in" angle- after all, if it is illegal to use available potentially exploitable holes to hack in to T-mobile account data, then surely it should be illegal for the RIAA to use an available potentially exploitable holes to see what files you're sharing. We'll see.

Anonymous said...

If she wins this lawsuit, it shows that EVERY time the RIAA has entered someone's computer, it has done so illegally, thanks to Mediasentry. Thus all the previous lawsuits were based on false evidence, and all the evidence in current cases, found through mediasentry, is now null and void, going by the same principles as current cases: if the evidence was gathered illegally, no matter what it says, it cannot be used in the court of law.

Hell Yes to this lady.

Anonymous said...

In the days of trojans and wireless networks, anybody could be blamed for something they didnt do. Or even use that as their defence.

For instance, a trojan can allow others to use your computer for their needs, without you knowing. They could use your computer to download something from the internet, ie. music, and then download the music from your computer, whereby you are the one that has left the trace, not the hacker, they get away scot free, your left to pay thousands of dollars worth of damages. I guarantee most computers will pick up a trojan every now and again, if they do not have one already.

As with wireless networks, it is very similar. If you have a wireless router within your home, you can suffer the same sort of consequences as above (or use the same to your defence). Wireless home networks can easily be trespassed, by a neighbour or passer by (wardriver - someone sitting in their car, using your internet for free, without you knowing). So this wireless trespasser can be downloading music using your internet connection, and the only trace left is your IP address which the RIAA will use against you. Each router shares an IP address with any computer that connects to it.

People really need to start defending themselves against the RIAA. They dont care if you did it or not, if its your IP address theyre coming to get you. So blame it on someone else. Try using their own tacktics against them

Ambimom said...

You go girl!

Anonymous said...

Good for her. Let's not forget there will be a jury.

hagermania.com

horai said...

I wish he all success and would happily donate money is she set up a defense fund.

Anonymous said...

yeah, i hope the jury fines RIAA anyway, im sure they understand the monopoly of RIAA

Jonathan said...

So, just what in the hell has MediaSentry been doing?

It looks to me like they had no evidence that Ms. Anderson engaged in any file sharing, yet claimed they had entered her computer.

She is worried that RIAA hacked into her computer - well guess what: if they had hacked they would have seen no downloads, and left her alone. Since they think there actually were downloads it's proof that they never hacked her machine!

This, of course, assumes good faith on the part of the Record Companies, instead of an all-out effort to rack up numbers of lawsuits. From the counterclaims posted here, it would appear that the record companies may have actually been filing suits without any solid information, or even ignoring exhonerating information.

What's worse, there's a hint here that they entered her computer, found no infringing information, but tried to extort her using personal information they DID gather.

If there's anything to the counterclaims, the RIAA and Media Sentry are in a heap of trouble, possibly including criminal charges.

The Editor said...

Way to go! I hope she crushes them.

Anonymous said...

Technical issues aside, the heart of the lawsuit is that the RIAA colluded with other organizations to extort money from this lady. They said she downloaded this stuff illegally and she claims that she didn't. I think the RICO stuff will still apply, whether they illegally got info off her computer or not. These people at the RIAA are bad, bad people. The worst of the worst of the leeches in the music industry that suck a living off of creative people.

Stephen said...

I feel that what the RIAA did is wrong. IP Addresses do not prove identities.

I also think that she should have added 3 additional counterclaim defendants. The RIAA itself, Settlement Support Center, and MediaSentry.

Anonymous said...

the trespassing claims are bogus, as p2p users willingly share files and a file list as part of the client program. getting a list of files and IP address are trivial, and require no trespassing whatsoever

if the lawyers had any sense, they'd play up a clerical error defense instead of an inconsistent "i'm innocent, yet the RIAA trespassed to get evidence that wouldn't have been there if i really was innocent" also playing the disabled card is nothing but showboating

Anonymous said...

Whoever says that 'they didn't hack into her computer' and all the stupid crap. You have no idea who a JURY is made of... its made mostly of people that 1) have no idea about the internets or downloading 2) have some idea but not enough knowledge about to know if that claim is true or false or 3) They have a high amount of technical knowledge and they hate the RIAA...

Anonymous said...

Congratz
someone is finally standing up against those scum. I haven't listen to music in a three years now (besides radio and MTV) because I won't support a RIAA artist. That and all the music coming out now is terrible. I still can't believe the supreme court agrees that they have the right to snoop our computers! That just crazy, I bet you if I broke into their server looking for illegal music I'd land in jail. Damn screwed up legal system, I'd bet she'd win if she slipped the judge a couple hundred thousand like the RIAA.

Anonymous said...

I bet she gets $3, just like the USFL did when they sued the National Football League for monopolizing the US Football market...

Anonymous said...

People really need to start defending themselves against the RIAA. They dont care if you did it or not, if its your IP address theyre coming to get you. So blame it on someone else. Try using their own tacktics against them

Well any shared system has a lease time and space for an IP address. So actually you can prove that a "war driver" was on your network and what private address they had at that time. All routers log this. However, in NYC I was forced to stop bringing my Mac into this one bar, because they had WIFI and got a DMCA in the mail. Soon, in the next 2 years, internet will be free and everywhere, then at that point the RIAA can't tell a whatever from a hole in the ground. Only then will we be immune. Fsck, the RIAA.

Anonymous said...

Congratz
someone is finally standing up against those scum. I haven't listen to music in a three years now (besides radio and MTV) because I won't support a RIAA artist. That and all the music coming out now is terrible. I still can't believe the supreme court agrees that they have the right to snoop our computers! That just crazy, I bet you if I broke into their server looking for illegal music I'd land in jail. Damn screwed up legal system, I'd bet she'd win if she slipped the judge a couple hundred thousand like the RIAA.
# posted by Anonymous : 1:03 PM


LMFAO. You have no idea how much your statement made me laugh. You hate the RIAA but listen to MTV... Damn I've gone and pissed myself laughing at that.

Jonathan said...

Well any shared system has a lease time and space for an IP address. So actually you can prove that a "war driver" was on your network and what private address they had at that time. All routers log this.

Most home routers don't keep logs that long. In fact, if they're set to log anything the firewall rejects, the log may recycle several times per day--long before the six months to a year it would take for the RIAA to get around to threatening you.

Jonathan said...

You hate the RIAA but listen to MTV... Damn I've gone and pissed myself laughing at that.

While the possible irony is not lost on me, it seems that you (like many people) seem to think that the recording companies the RIAA represents are indispensible for you to get music. In fact, they're increasingly irrelevant. The artists make music, not RIAA companies.

Anonymous said...

The allegation that they broke into her computer is based on their own statements that they did so.

Either they DID break into her computer (illegal), or they made fraudulent statements about breaking into her computer and having evidence against her (also illegal).

Either way, she wins. She has a fine lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Quote: 'What does the fact that she's disabled have to do with this lawsuit?'

If you read the document it claims that this has further exacerbated her health.

Anonymous said...

Directv did the same thing the same way. What you will find is that they have identified a person they conclude is the target. There only wish is to punish the target. The punishment is that the target will pay them, or the target will pay an attorney. Either way it translates as punishment for someone they judged as criminal. Now because it is punishment is what they want they will try to impose the punishment through the letter and pressure. This part is the most sucessful because the cost of paying them is lower then the cost of litigation. When they sue, they can say anything in the suit because they will never have to back it up in a trial. They will not go to trial unles they have direct evidence which they do not have in most cases. Right before a trial they will make a settlement to drop the case if you the target agree not to persue them. The target at this point is told it is $25000 to pay an attorney to defend in trial or nothing if you just sign a mutual release. Guess what happens.

This is a private company adjuding someone guilty. Then the cost associated with this is the punishment the target in all these cases will face.Punishment is the money the target will pay weather by paying there wn atorney, or paying them. They trial is the only place a target can win and that option for 99% just costs too much.

Anonymous said...

I do hope she wins, because if she is correct about the company telling her that they were suing her even though they had no evidence, that's worse than anything. However, there are some technical factual problems that they should correct, because if this went to a jury trial and there was a technical expert there, it would cast doubt on her whole lawsuit if she couldn't even get the simplest facts straight. In reality, it only means that she got a couple of technical facts wrong, but it could still be used against her in court to cast doubt, especially with a nontechnical jury. I hope they correct the facts and file a correction or whatever the actual procedure is so that it's an airtight case that has to actually be defended against and can't just be nitpicked out of the court system because of some minor technical mistakes.

OfficerCartman said...

Lots of good posts! Let me throw in my 2 cents on the matter, per a discussion with my friend Lukus.

In truth, music is something that shapes cultures, and people as a whole. How often do people find themselves in better (or maybe worse) moods, after hearing a song? Two of the largest memory triggers humans have are the senses of smell and sound. Hearing a song reminds us of days gone by, of better times, and of loves long lost.
But all in all, these money-grubbing record labels seek to drive the very consumers they want to appeal to, into the ground. I don't feel sorry for groups of musicians (lets use Metallica, since really it more or less started there) who feel their millions upon millions of dollars are just not enough to live on. Though i don't have the figures, I'm sure its not hard to believe that members of Metallica are having little financial difficulty after the sale of millions upon millions of records.
All in all, its greed and fear of loss that drive these people to do idiotic things such as suing innocent people simply as part of a scare tactics campaign. Eventually (and I dare anyone to think this isnt the reality of the situation), everything will be free and online. And since the RIAA has publically stated they refuse to change their business plan to accomodate these changes, then they will eventually go the way of the do-do. If musicians were doing something that people liked to listen to, I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would *want* to buy their CD. And don't forget the costs of concerts, etc. If the music is good, people *will* put out money to listen to it. We shouldnt have to worry about extortion from the RIAA simply because they just want more. Hopefully, they'll wake up...but I'm not holding my breath.

OC

Anonymous said...

She does need a better lawyer, or to tighten this up. She should drop the "disabled" part, what kind of music she likes, when she's asleep, and so forth. Stick to a very small number of charges against RIAA that she can clearly prove. These other things weaken her case

Anonymous said...

I hope the RIAA goes down soon...

Anonymous said...

Media Sentry doesn't break into your computer, it merely runs fake accounts on the server looking for file lists and ips.

However, as many have pointed out, your ip address doesn't prove identitiy.

Anonymous said...

Quote: 'What does the fact that she's disabled have to do with this lawsuit?'

as other point out, it is alleged that the RIAA activities damaged her health.

for those less astute: in a jury trial a disabled person with a limited income will engender sympathy.

Go get em and good luck; the RIAA and the Settlement Center does act like the mob and their enforcer

Anonymous said...

It's a civil case, not criminal. You don't need proof, you need a preponderance of evidence. The ISP saying that such-and-such address was leased to this individual is likely enough.

Anonymous said...

You guys who are saying that she needs to get a another lawyer are clueless. It's actually a pretty good brief. A couple of points:

1) The fact that she's disabled go pretty much to the heart of count 6, and to damages "including harm to Ms. Anderson's health and property"...

2) Some of the claims are a little on the edge, but the answer and counterclaim are where you throw them out. Everything may not stick, but it's a lot harder to add new claims later than to set them out in the first place.

3) Whether Media Sentry hacked her computer or not, the Settlement Center CLAIMED they did. That puts them between a rock and a hard place: Either they hacked her on behalf of the plaintiff (illegal and by definition a conspiracy) or they lied about it (an illegally deceptive act). It's beautiful and leaves the plaintiff/counterclaim-defendant (the record companies) without an exit.

Anonymous said...

Two important points:

1) If they did break into computers (even if it turns out not to be hers, but to be whoever had her IP address) the folks who did that may be going to jail for a LONG LONG TIME. Breaking into computers isn't a civil crime, it's a FELONY. (Adding on top of that, comitting a felony for profit... oh boy). The DoJ needs to be contacted pronto.

2) If they read any of her emails, looked at any of her directory listings, glanced at any of her pictures, etc. then the person who did so MUST have downloaded the contact in order to view it. This constitutes, suprise, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!

Anonymous said...

About her "hacking claim"...

From what I can make out of her case, she is claiming that she is unaware that she was on a file-sharing network until she got the John-Doe subpoena. And she was was unaware of such a program, the whole act of MediaSentry using that program and protocol to get access to her computer was, to her, an invasion of privacy and an act stealing information from her computer.

Anonymous said...

someone is finally standing up against those scum. I haven't listen to music in a three years now (besides radio and MTV) because I won't support a RIAA artist. That and all the music coming out now is terrible.

Your ignorance makes me lose faith in the human race.

sirk said...

Good luck.
The RIAA needs to be shown that ruining peoples lives is a fucked up way to make money. Hint: Step the fuck off the people who pay your bills bitches.

Anonymous said...

She should be talking to the FBI computer crime divison and the mainstream media as much as possible.

Jonathan said...

Media Sentry doesn't break into your computer, it merely runs fake accounts on the server looking for file lists and ips.

The means by which Media Sentry allegedly browsed the contents of her computer (or a portion of it) don't seem to be specified. Maybe they did it using a file-sharing program's facility to list shared files (e.g. Kazaa has this ability, of course), or maybe they used Windows shares.

Laws against unauthorized access of computers have become rather draconian. We'll have to see where this goes. If she were knowingly running a P2P program and they used a feature of that program, I'd think it could be argued that the sharing of some drive contents was deliberate. Otherwise, Media Sentry may be in a little trouble.

Jonathan said...

From what I can make out of her case, she is claiming that she is unaware that she was on a file-sharing network until she got the John-Doe subpoena. And she was was unaware of such a program, the whole act of MediaSentry using that program and protocol to get access to her computer was, to her, an invasion of privacy and an act stealing information from her computer.

Where did you read this? I read the brief quoted here, and didn't see that. Did I just miss it?

Anonymous said...

I have heard of hackers spoofing IP addresses and in some cases even MAC addresses. I am no expert on the subject but, is seeing her IP address listed somewhere is really proof that it was her computer? Also, did she have a permenant IP address or just a temporary IP address assigned by a DHCP server?

I do not know much about peer-to-peer file sharing but here is another concern I have about proving who is responsible. There are over 1 million zombie computers on the net. It is quite possible that some hacker was actually controlling her computer at the time and shielding his identity by using her computer to do his illegal activities. Many ordinary computer users may not realize their computer is one of the over 1 million Windows zombie computers on the net involved in illegal activities such as sending spam or identity theft. Could a few of those computers also be involved in file sharing? Has the RIAA made any effort to rule out those possible situations?

Anonymous said...

1. Many file sharing programs let you disable the sharing of files. Even if she or another individual with the ip address were use p2p it does not mean that data was shared.

2. It is certainly possible to fake an ip address, arp entry, or similar mechanism. The RIAA should not be able to do these anonymous suits because it can not prove who someone is. Even if its tracked to an ip and a home, it does not prove who was using the computer at that time.

3. If the computer was indeed hacked, legal charges need to be filed against Media sentry. Its equally hard to prove who hacked you because ip addresses are not proof of identity.

I hope everyone takes this possible "hack" situtation to heart and invests in a decent firewall and limits what software is running on their home computers. Also patch your operating system! Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, or whatever all have security problems and need patches.

Anonymous said...

Bless you for fighting this injustice. May G-d's face shine on you and give you peace.

Anonymous said...

this is beautiful. the riaa is finally gonna get hung out to dry!

dmniceguy said...

Okay first off I hope she kicks @#$ on this trial, the RIAA deserves all the bad press and lawsuits anyone can throw at them, their nothing more than a whinning little baby, just not cute.

As far as the zombie question, this is old information I am running on so forgive me if I am incorrect, that is a possibility, but you would need to download and run a self-executing file that places a patch on your system that will allow for external access, and I beleive windows needs to be set up for network sharing. But that setting I believe would be easy enough to change through the self-executing file. Once this patch is in all that needs to be is for the computer to be left on and plugged into a phone/DSL/LAN whatever way of getting out of the building into the wide-open world.

But deep investigation will allow the discovery of this patch I believe and thus prooving her guiltless once again.

Hey am I imagining this or was there a 'big problem' in the 80s with home-tapeing. I believe that hom-tapeing would destroy the music industry also? If this is more than just my imagination running wild, then - well - I think the recording industry is still around but I am not sure, maby in some alternate reality home-tapeing really did win and destroy the recording industry. You know the same strange reality where the RIAA gets away with basically highering people to hack into out computers and commit information theft - wait now I'm confused again.

Ahwell lets get some money together buy a politician and then we can do whatever we want to other peoples computers - oh maby I should not have said that!!

Anonymous said...

i hope i get sued i can use what shes doing to get me some money.. and also nail the RIAA

Anonymous said...

I hope she wins!!!

Anonymous said...

She should be talking to the FBI computer crime divison and the mainstream media as much as possible.

My guess is that the FBI is unenthusiastic about getting involved, perhaps for several reasons.
(1) their scarce cyberspace investigators have terrorists as a much higher priority target
(2) current public policy is to support private efforts, such as the RIAA effort, in the field of IP protection
(3) currently there is no widespread public perception that corporations are a problem when it comes to information theft

I believe that will all change if she prevails.

Anonymous said...

I hope she prevails...things better change. We should fight back...hack them!

Anonymous said...

This lawyer had better gird his loins. I wonder if he knows what a rapacious and well funded bunch of jackals he is up against.

Anonymous said...

I also think that she should have added 3 additional counterclaim defendants. The RIAA itself, Settlement Support Center, and MediaSentry.
I'm not a lawyer, but got straight A's in my law classes...
I think she can't add defendents in a countersuit, but since she is the defendent in the original suit, she can demand a jury trial. In addition, since she claims in part is conspiricy, when the investigation company and the debt collection company are brought in as witnesses, she can still have them declared hostile witnesses, with the attendant advantages.

In addition, if she prevails in round one, then she can still go after the other corporations in Oregon state court.

Then, under RICO statutes, she goes into Federal court. Here she may include as defendents the individuals who directed the activites. The RICO statute is very powerfull, since it allows the assets of the defendents to be frozen in some cases. With wins behind her in Oregon state court, that might be credible reason to freeze the assets of the individuals, since they might well attempt to hide or use up their assets.

Finally, if her suit is joined by others, she might even get a class action going.

All that is prbably nothing more than a very worst case speculation. She has some big hurdles before then.

In spite of my good law grades, I'm NOT a lawyer, and would love to read a lawyers view on this.

Zed said...

"Hey am I imagining this or was there a 'big problem' in the 80s with home-tapeing. I believe that hom-tapeing would destroy the music industry also?"

Nope, you're not imagining that. Before the cassette, the music industry raised hell when the LP came out. And before that, they said the same thing about radio. Well, surprise, they're still here. Since you mentioned cassettes; a portion of the sale of every blank cassette tape goes to the music industry. Ever wonder what the difference was between an audio CD-R and a data CD-R? Buy an audio CD-R and, just like a cassette tape, a percent of the sale goes to them. It would be nice if the music industry, instead of attacking new technology, would embrace it. The writing is on the wall, the Internet is not going away. Imagine how far ahead they would have been if they had embraced Napster and found a fair way to collect royalties instead of killing it?

Anonymous said...

The RIAA can go screw themselves. I hope the jury award some ridiculous penalty. They tend to favour the individuals rather than the organization.

Jojo Kura said...

Break 'em off some !

Anonymous said...

There has been quite a few comments that mention that file sharing implies the invitation. The only problem with that logic is that it is counter to how the law is applied. If you work as a system admin, you access hundreds, thousands, and millions of files a day. Your employer knows and pays you to access those files and has given you express permission. As soon as you do so in a manner that is not in their interests, you can and will be prosecuted. For example, you decide to "show the bigwigs" their security vulnerabilities. Only problem is, they didn't authorize you to use the information in that manner.

IANAL, but it doesn't seem a reach at all for her to claim the same vague rule for her computer. She didn't allow, either expressly or through implication, the right to plant and harvest data. No one would, and this is why spyware is illegal.

Anonymous said...

Quote: "...lose is like your a loser. How can you post on this board about how terrible her lawyer is and do so with such poor grammer."

Great call, grammar genius. Your mastery of the English language has left us all in awe. *sigh*

Just so my post is not completely devoid of a point, I also wanted to chip in and help point out that the technical merit behind the "hacking" claims may be of little relevance.

As others have noted, these claims were entirely based on the information that was presented to Ms. Anderson by the Settlement Support Center. THEY said that they entered her computer and obtained some form of "proof". So this means that either MediaSentry did illegally gain access to the PC (and they are screwed), or the SSC is lying about it in order to gain leverage and coerce a payment from Ms. Anderson (and they are screwed).

A rock and a hard place is a very apt description of their position. :)

Anonymous said...

I have been waiting for a long time for a person to stand up to the RIAA. I would like to ask what I can do to help either Ms. Andersen, Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, or the EFF? I want to constructively channel my hate for the RIAA this time. I would like to add (to Anonymous@11:54pm - I’ll send you my t-shirt) that the hacking bit was done a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

She is disabled, what are they gonna do sue her for her wheelchair. They sure can't take her SS income. goodluck Ms. Anderson

Anonymous said...

Don't Settle. What we need is presidence. Take them all the way and give em hell.

Anonymous said...

Guess none of you like music? The RIAA pays my bills and feeds my family, assholes.

Anonymous said...

sounds like this lady is really poor, so good. her lawyer fees should be free to her. then she can ride this lawsuit all the way to the bank! F#ck the RIAA and the families they feed. they just stealing food from someone else to give it to you - and they been doing that for years. b|tches..

Tits McFadden

Anonymous said...

Guess none of you like music? The RIAA pays my bills and feeds my family, assholes.
Guess the RIAA is not the only means to music - guess you better consider the long term viability of an organizagtion that sues the people it expects to pay them for their product.

Anonymous said...

Good for her. It's about time someone took those morons to court. When are they and the MPAA going to learn? Instead of antagonizing they should worry about the c**p they release nowadays. Now the sharks want to get more and are looking to raise prices on iTunes as well. Pff.

Anonymous said...

The MAXIMUM jail time and fines for downloading a single track is TEN TIMES the maximum penalty for a non-fatal drunk driving incident.

What is wrong with this picture?

Oh, BTW, the RIAA screwed up here. They THINK they hacked her PC, but they hacked someone else's. They're simply confusing IP addresses which is not hard to do.

Anonymous said...

trial by jury, its all up to jury selection... there is no justice only luck and karma, our fates are in each others hands (and I just droped what I was holding...).

to put it another way, when did we get the idea that 12 random people have the ability to get anything right? its a shame u put 2 teams of professional debators up and see who wins, theres no 'justice' in our system.

Desert88 said...

This lady is my hero

Desert88 said...

This lady is my hero! I pray that she wins and that this will maybe put a dent in the ego of the RIAA. I hope this will open the courts eyes as to how the RIAA is just money hungry and sues innocent people.

Anonymous said...

Finally a Law firm that is willing to do the unpopular.Applaude!!! and a big applause for the plantiff !!You go Girl.

Anonymous said...

have you considered a class action suit or even donations help take on the record giants?

amp said...

Ms. Anderson has my support. I hope she gives the RIAA a bloody nose and shows them that people are sick of their crap.

Anonymous said...

an IP address in decimal is 12 digits(4 groups of 3 digits) and in hex is 8 chars long(4 groups of 2 digits). having only 9 digits, means anothe 255 possible matching ip addresses out there.

Stephen said...

Guess none of you like music? The RIAA pays my bills and feeds my family, assholes.

My response to that, is that a lot of us love music! We understand that artists should be paid! What the RIAA does not get is the following:

* IP addresses and times don't prove one's indentity. There are many times where the person paying the bill for internet access isn't the actual downloader who infringed the copyright. This can happen in cases of broadband routers, roommates, officemates, spouses, children, domestic partnets, computer labs, shared use computers, laptop docking ports, computer labs, public terminals, and many other cases. In many cases, the ISP doesn't know who is actually in front of the computer.

* Most internet file sharers I have talked to are upset at the RIAA's lawsuit campaign. Instead, they think we need to solve the compensation problem so that people like you actually get fed for file sharing. Many P2P companies, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Neil Weinstock Natanel, Boycott-RIAA.com, Matt Goyer, and others have proposed many schemes to accomplish just this. Consumers, Artists, Songwriters, and others would benefit if the RIAA seriously considered this, instead of lobbying to ban P2P technology. In fact, KaZaa's conterclaims against the labels illistrate this.

* Consumers are also upset about using the DMCA to control independent innovation. There are many developers who aren't huge big corporations who don't have multimillion dollar budgets to get a technology "Authorized" by the major labels and studios. I feel that restoring free and open innovation would be another way to restore tje RIAA and MPAA's image to the public. Some of such developers include hobbyists, students learning to program, academic researchers, small companies, the open source community, and others.

Stephen said...

Guess none of you like music? The RIAA pays my bills and feeds my family, assholes.

My response to that, is that a lot of us love music! We understand that artists should be paid! What the RIAA does not get is the following:

* IP addresses and times don't prove one's indentity. There are many times where the person paying the bill for internet access isn't the actual downloader who infringed the copyright. This can happen in cases of broadband routers, roommates, officemates, spouses, children, domestic partnets, computer labs, shared use computers, laptop docking ports, computer labs, public terminals, and many other cases. In many cases, the ISP doesn't know who is actually in front of the computer.

* Most internet file sharers I have talked to are upset at the RIAA's lawsuit campaign. Instead, they think we need to solve the compensation problem so that people like you actually get fed for file sharing. Many P2P companies, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Neil Weinstock Natanel, Boycott-RIAA.com, Matt Goyer, and others have proposed many schemes to accomplish just this. Consumers, Artists, Songwriters, and others would benefit if the RIAA seriously considered this, instead of lobbying to ban P2P technology. In fact, KaZaa's conterclaims against the labels illistrate this.

* Consumers are also upset about using the DMCA to control independent innovation. There are many developers who aren't huge big corporations who don't have multimillion dollar budgets to get a technology "Authorized" by the major labels and studios. I feel that restoring free and open innovation would be another way to restore tje RIAA and MPAA's image to the public. Some of such developers include hobbyists, students learning to program, academic researchers, small companies, the open source community, and others.

Anonymous said...

Someone up on this list stated three reasons the FBI isn't investigating the various federal crimes committed by the RIAA.

4) Guess who Bush and his cronies work for and it's not the public(us), and the FBI works for them.

Anonymous said...

I thought Bush worked for OIL companies? then it was the Weather Companies... And then Automobile Companies.. and then Military Contractors.. (Halaburten)

Were now changing that to Bush working for the RIAA/MPAA?
LOL...

Leave THAT type of politiking (Mispelled on purpose) out of this... geesh :P

Anonymous said...

riaa thinks piracy is causing them lost revenue. if u stop people from downloading 500 songs, it doesn't mean people will go out and buy the 500 songs.

Anonymous said...

Guess none of you like music? The RIAA pays my bills and feeds my family, assholes.

Not to be cliche, but the Nazis/Stalin/Sadam paid bills and fed families too. If you'd like to keep your conscience intact, you might want to look for a new employer. And I do like music, which is why I stay away from RIAA-affiliated artists...the ones more concerned with music than money.

More power to her. It's tragic that the legal system is no longer (ever was?) an arena of right Vs wrong. They sue, never expecting to go to court, knowing that the plaintiff can't afford to gamble lawyer's fees to fight back

On a legal, technical note: in court, where is the burden of proving identity (from IP) placed? On the RIAA to prove guilt or the plaintiff to prove innocence (ie: you have my IP, but I claim I was hacked...prove me wrong).

...Or is it irrelevant, because the burden is on the plaintiff to protect their own connection and make sure that no one is using it for "illegal activities."

Anonymous said...

An IP address is not exactly 12 digits. A IPv4 IP address in decimal format has between 4 and 12 digits. One of the most commonly used addresses is 192.168.1.1 which has 8 digits. Google.com has 216.239.37.99 as one of its addresses, an address with 10 digits.

Anonymous said...

Quote: "...burden is on the plaintiff to protect their own connection and make sure that no one is using it for "illegal activities." "

I suspect this may be a sticking point in many cases like this. This would certainly be the kind of thing that would protect an ISP from being liable for any activities taking place using their networks, so I can definitely see this being thrown into the ring to try and attach responsibility to Ms Anderson.

Truly Concerned said...

This is great news. It's about time someone pushed back. The method of the RIAA is divide and conquer through scare tactics. They work like an organized crime outfit. They approach each individually through their hired henchman. What a joke they are.

Pirates rape, kill, pillage, and plunder on the high seas--not listen to music in the quite privacy of their homes. I hope the RIAA gets what they have coming to them. Go girl!

Anonymous said...

Ok guys, I am not a lawyer, but I have to say something here. The illegal hacking charges may come into play, and here's why. The 3rd party hired by the RIAA did not use a legal client to most of the closed P2P networks. In that case, I would venture to say that anyone on a closed P2P network with an unofficial, unsupported, and/or home-grown client for the purpose of illegally infiltrating, viewing, and hacking into said P2P networks, and thus illegally accessed thousands of computers. The open networks, like Gnutella, would be harder to defend under this, but Kazaa and the like are closed, and as such, subject under this defense, regardless if it was open for other leagal clients.

Personally, I'd like to see the RIAA hung out to dry on this one. They more than deserve the justice. This may also help set precedent for future cases against them, although I've noticed a trend these days with judges being reluctant to set any type of example. Indeed, I think ths legal system in the US has been shrunk from the roaring lion it once was, to a purring kitten.

Anonymous said...

Someone should set up a fund for this woman which hasn't been blessed with good fortune.. from life and from the RIAA

Anonymous said...

the RIAA needs to just back off, they have no business tellin the public what they can or can not do, especially in the privacy of thier own homes. what's the difference if JOE borrows a cassette tape from SUE to record on a blank cassette?! c'mon file sharing is basically the same thing..

someone SHOULD hack the RIAA, then of course distribute the list of anything the RIAA has been hiding from the public TO the public..

a bit of what comes around goes around...good job to this lady, hit 'em back, and hit 'em hard gf!

Anonymous said...

Here's how & who to talk to:

Carlos Gaza (lawyer) Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/
1558687_1?noconfirm=1

Give these parasites hell.

Anonymous said...

Quote: "An IP address is not exactly 12 digits. A IPv4 IP address in decimal format has between 4 and 12 digits. One of the most commonly used addresses is 192.168.1.1 which has 8 digits. Google.com has 216.239.37.99 as one of its addresses, an address with 10 digits."

Technically, it's still a 12 digit address, the 0's are there, they're just not displayed. You can type the 0's if you want to, and the address works the same.

Oh, and good luck to this lady on her trial.

Anonymous said...

For you guys talking about IP addresses, it is actually far more accurate and correct to say that an IPV4 address is simply a 32 bit value.

Its just so happens that this is commonly expressed as 4 byte values (0 to 255) in dot-separated notation, and that by grouping machines using the higher-order bytes the concept of "sub-nets" can be expressed.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that people are claiming the entering her computer is false and shouldn't be used. The problem is or as i read it would be that someone attemting to colect the money form her said they entered her computer and had proof it was her doing the filesharing and downloading. She eventualy got someone to counter this claim from one of the companies.

This is essential to proving the infair bussiness stuff as well as helping along the RICCO stuff. I would weager the only reason this is in the case would be to back RIAAs defense into a corner. This will basicaly cause RIAA to acknowledge that an ip adress doesn't identify a person but represent an user who should have been online with that responce at that time. RIAA will basicaly be saying that we cannot 100% guarente it was her but we feel it might be and then continuued to act on colecting the debt by using stong arm tactics. RIAA is going to prove her points and lose favor with a jurry by defending against this.

Anonymous said...

Good luck Tanya!

easyTree said...

My (somewhat disorganised) ten cents worth ..

--
Desert88
said...

This lady is my hero! I pray that she wins and that this will maybe put a dent in the ego of the RIAA. I hope this will open the courts eyes as to how the RIAA is just money hungry and sues innocent people.
--

What kind of people do you think they are?

When it's 'business as usual' for them, they're investing millions of dollars of your money to come into your home via tv, radio, print-media and cynically manipulate the minds of your children to believe that their product has more importance in contemporary culture than it deserves.

The product itself, as produced by the artists (before the many layers of talentless parasites are added) is often (though not always) something which plays on the unhappier side of your emotional history to create a strong emotional response which you then associate with their product.

Add to this, their latest strategy, the corporate version of 'gimme my money, biatch', favoured by knife-wielding crackhead muggers everywhere, and it's clear to see what kind of people they are.

They've harnessed something which used to be common currency among individuals, used to spread joy; taken it away from the people at large, making it available only after their tax has been added. Possessors, as they are, of the nightclub bouncer/troll gene, their prime motivation and function is to obstruct a natural process and tax it.

Perhaps more disturbing, they've deliberately attempted to overpower the ideas of fairness and justice; to use the legal system as a tool to satisfy their corporate goals, in a climate where the invidual is excluded from obtaining justice due to prohibitive costs; a problem not encountered by the RIAA and their type, having already collected their joy-tax from these same individuals.

These people do not deserve to be financially rewarded above and beyond the rewards given to someone who performs a vital function such as saving life, maintaining health, or providing ANY necessity of life.

The problem is that the cyclical nature of the advertising tactics used, shows music practitioners to be healthy, attractive, talented, almost literally glowing, idealised *stars*, clearly deserving of the large reward they're asking in exchange for the ability to say 'uh-huh' and 'in the motherfucking ghettooooh yo' in time to a beat. In return, they'll buy fast cars, drugs, homes, boats, commit god knows how many crimes against fashion, and secure their long-term future and the futures of all their descendants. I mean, come on, really!?! does that seem like a fair exchange to you? It's time to wake up people. [How much longer are "y'all" gonna allow the music industry to leverage the collective teen-guilt relating to their indirect involvement in slavery?]

Take a moment to step outside contemporary culture if you're able and consider the tangible contributions these 'stars' and their corporate jackals offer anyone but themselves in the long term.

They have for years, had a captive audience, who've been told what to think, what to buy and how much to pay.

Now, for them, the problem isn't filesharing, it's the internet. It's enabling people to exchange ideas rapidly, leading to an accelerating increase in the level of awareness of your average person; that awareness is leading at least some of them to conclusions such as "I'm not paying for this nonsense any longer".

The RIAA and those like them have sensed their imminent extinction on the wind. Their target audience no longer exists; gradually, as a global organism, our consciousness is awakening and we're realising that within our ranks we have abusers in positions of power. Abusers who will no longer be allowed to exist. Step aside RIAA and the like, your services are no longer required.

PS. Personal thanks go out to the RIAA's policy-making department. I can think of no better way to demonstrate how they view their customers. Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. They consider you cattle to be prodded and nudged into submission. Hopefully, years of tv, radio and print-media advertising-mindfuck hasn't left your senses too dulled to realise that you need to break free of your holding pens; once, and for all.

Kye Lewis said...

"The allegation that they broke into her computer is based on their own statements that they did so. Either they DID break into her computer (illegal), or they made fraudulent statements about breaking into her computer and having evidence against her (also illegal)."

Incorrect. MediaSentry actively admits that they collect information about file sharing, but by all logical standards they don't do this illegally; to say such is the same as saying that if someone walks up to you and asks you for your PIN number, and you gave it to them, it was illegal for them to collect that information. One client (MediaSentry) requested it, and the serving client obliged to give out the information.

Whether data collected like this should be admissable in a court of law is another question all together, and whether the data collected can be stuck to her as a person is also questionable.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, not sure about this one. It sounds great on the surface, but what if she loses? Does that open up precedent to prevent other counter-suits? She sounds like she has a decent case, but it always starts out that way. I hope she does indeed give them Hell, but I wouldn't be surprised if she sells out and goes away quietly with a nice fat settlement... I can't say that I'd do any less, but that won't help any of the rest of the folks. The only way this can TRULY benefit everyone else, is if she wins and pushes for a judgement on it and forces the RIAA/MPAA back into a corner which disallows them from using such measures in the future.

Anonymous said...

Incorrect. MediaSentry actively admits that they collect information about file sharing, but by all logical standards they don't do this illegally; to say such is the same as saying that if someone walks up to you and asks you for your PIN number, and you gave it to them, it was illegal for them to collect that information. One client (MediaSentry) requested it, and the serving client obliged to give out the information.

Perhaps, perhaps not. There aren't a lot of details provided here. Did Media Sentry merely browse files listed via a P2P program? If so, did Anderson know this program was running on her computer, or had it been hacked?

Or did Media Sentry enter the computer in some other way (e.g. Windows file sharing)?

Anonymous said...

Finally, it should be noted that just because a computer system is open to browsing doesn't mean that anyone can legally do so. The law may be a bit draconian in this respect, but I do believe that's the way it's written.

SlimTDX said...

the technical merits of this case are thin, at best. when using a p2p prog, you are broadcasting your ip address. however, if they are pulling certain information off your computer (ie: name, address, email address, etc), then they are most definitely wrong. and what just mentioned is what a company like MediaSentry is paid to do. besides, most knuckleheads reuse the same name in p2p progs as they do in their emails, so with persistent searching via google, lexis, and yahoo, a person can add 2+2 to get what the RIAA wants. their tactics do sound disconcertingly alot like the sopranos or the godfather, lol. very brutish. very RICOish. i dont foresee her losing this case, but i dont see her winning it, shell be bought out. disabled and with a kid, definitely in need of cash. hate to say it. also note, im not a proponent of pirated music online. i do think that we should all pay, but its a catch 22 when these jerks are charging an arm and a leg for a cd. apple has it right with the 99 cent per song thing, hopefully they keep it up. and to those "muscians" who whine about people stealing their livelihood, stfu, the internet has made it incredibly easier to get "noticed" nowadays. its doing for music what its done for the gaming mod community. publishing youre junk in mp3 on the net is a helluva lot better than playing at a subway stop in the bronx for pocket change.

Anonymous said...

if mss andersen has not been downloading any music, the RIAA is wrong

Other people who perform illegal activities could be a target for the RIAA, but even then it should happen in other fashion, then this kind of threatening....

I hope the riaa will change his methods of abusing people after this trial

Anonymous said...

GO Tanya Andersen!!! Not like you care but EVERYONE hates you, RIAA.

Jeff J said...

This is pretty cool news and everything, but I'm still having a hard time seeing past the author's use of the acronym IPA for IP Address. Who -does- that?

Also, I couldn't read the whole thing. Somewhere in the 40's, the article started repeating itself quite a bit. The RIAA was/is wrong in several, several ways but inflating the list by repeating the same points diminishes an argument. Any argument. Just sayin'

All that aside though, good for her. I really do hope she runs with this. The RIAA's actions disgust me. There exists a sickness in this country which seems to make companies believe it is the responsibility of -our- government to maintain the profitability of -their- ideas well after they no longer can/should be, and it really pisses me off.

Anonymous said...

Of course, it is easily possible that someone could have been downloading music and spoofed her IP address. In that case it woul have appeared that she was doing the downloading.

In any case, no matter the verdict in her lawsuit against the record companies, she ought to press criminal charges against the officers of the RIAA and other companies involved. It's time the REAL music thieves did some jail time.

Anonymous said...

Nice job, I'll be tracking this one on Westlaw. Odds are that this jury will be composed of 99% non record execs or movie or music stars. I just hope the court doesn't spit out the dismissal on a lesser defense and refrain from confronting the larger issues.

Off to print the pleadings!

Anonymous said...

While I do hope the RIAA get a slap in the face, I can't help but wonder, could it be her kid that was downloading?

GSmith said...

"Finally, it should be noted that just because a computer system is open to browsing doesn't mean that anyone can legally do so. The law may be a bit draconian in this respect, but I do believe that's the way it's written."

Exactly. "Wardrivers" (people who drive about with a wireless laptop accessing unsecured wireless networks) are still breaking a federal law, even if the netwrok had no security whatsoever.

If I leave a door or window to my house open, that's not an invitation to enter without permission. To do so is still tresspassing. Permission to enter a private home is not implied.

If I leave my wallet sitting on my desk at work, it's still theft to take money from it. Carelessness is not a crime, but stealing from the careless is.

The same principle applies. If MediaSentry improperly accessed her computer without permission and the RIAA retained them to do so, they should both be hung out to dry.

Anonymous said...

"She is worried that RIAA hacked into her computer - well guess what: if they had hacked they would have seen no downloads, and left her alone. Since they think there actually were downloads it's proof that they never hacked her machine!"

No, Either way she wins. This isn't as if a law enforcement agency had 'tapped' her machine. The trespassor is a private entity, and that entity should have its ass kicked.

Anonymous said...

This actually scares me. While it is great that the RIAA is going to get a taste of its own medicine, it is only going to encourage them to step up their lobbying efforts in congress to get the law changed in their favor. How you say? Well read the article from the EFF on how they along with the MPAA, and TV studios are trying to force the Broadcast flag down our throats even after the courts struck it down. While Ms. Anderson may have found a good lawyer, and may have the resolve to fight this thing through to the end, and win, I don't know that we collectivly have the ability to prevent congress from taking money from the RIAA and screwing us over. Fortunatly the news of this helps pressure congress to know we dont want this garbage, but if done quietly enough only a few congressmen will take the fall, and the cartel will pay their expenses for the rest of their lives, not to mention the pension for being in congress...so there really is no accountability.
Keep your eyes open, and be prepared to write/call/etc all your elected officials.

Anonymous said...

as furthar proof this person could be innocent, i have come across what appears to be a windows xp root kit, that ahs the following in it ,
an exploit to get through windows XP's firewall,
another exploit to disable norton antivirus,
a "bot" that would then allow transmission to and form the computer files,
this is how the zombie boxes described above are made, and its almost funny that the riaa is going to get an ass whooping if each of us keeps a virus on our box as a defense, ( reasonable doubt about who did the activities = thrown out = sue them back, for all the BS)
you may start seeing more people use this type of defense as truth be told last time i researched it there
were more than 1 million zombie computers ,

Anonymous said...

Good Luck Miss. You're the hero of a lot of peopel inthe word and some hundred millions of them is with you. We are hoping you to win against these devils... You'll become a hero in eyes of the world and your name will be in history books... You'll be our hero... Please do the best you can... We can help you. We'll help you !

Dan said...

The owners of this blog should enable word verification for comments.

Tweedledetweedledum, one of the earlier commenters, is spam - I've seen this on my blogs already.

Anonymous said...

Like another poster said, what the heck is the RIAA going to do 2 years from now?

Wireless ISP access (Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, or something better) will be available for free, on a citywide basis.

Google is bidding on providing wireless ISP access to the entire city of San Fran - what will the RIAA do in that case, sue Google?

Anonymous said...

An infected e-mail could have left her machine running some zombie P2P routine in the background. If she's as technically naive as she portrays she probably wouldn't have noticed.

Then there's the not-small issue of MediaSentry breaking into her machine to snoop. That one's a Fed-level felony, gang. And RIAA hiring them to do it makes them a co-conspirator.

If this is how they've been collecting information to coerce their other settlements, I think the RICO suit is an excellent move to drag these slugs out from under their corporate rock into the nice bright sun where they will hopefully dry up and blow away.

Steve Magruder said...

Could this possibly become a class action?

Anonymous said...

Could this possibly become a class action?

From what I understand, it would be worse for RIAA if it didn't. If RIAA instead had to defend against 14,000 individual lawsuits, they'd have quite a bit more trouble and potential liability on their hands.

Anonymous said...

Invasion of privacy is one thing, but illegally downloading music, whether it was done by her or her daughter, is another thing. I do it, everyone does it, but its stealing, you can't call it anything else.

Anonymous said...

Even if she picked up some type of trojan or zombie application, what the RIAA is doing is still not right.

If someone unlawfully gains access to your property/equipment and uses that property/equipment in illegal activities then how can it be the fault of the proprietor? Same thing if someone stole your vehicle and used it to rob a bank. Or plain and simple identity theift.

I will say that more ISP's are using equipment to detect and manage p2p file transfers. They mainly use this equipment to allow, disallow, or limit p2p applications or limit bandwidth allowed for these applications.

The RIAA could be using something simular or making deals with certain ISP's to obtain information. All in all, an investigation and proof should have to be provided well before threats are made. Also, the RIAA should be required to provide MAC address information in their investigation instead of just plain and simple IP address information about the accussed.

Anonymous said...

Oui vas y tu vas piner la RIAA ^^

Anonymous said...

I wish her the best of luck.

PPN said...

I really want to see how this goes down using the RICO claims.. it could be very interesting..

Why don't we all file 'Friends of the Court' briefs supporting Miss Andersons posistion. A little public support / interest can't hurt. (especially if you're a previous RIAA victim.. OR a lawyer.)

Anonymous said...

A Lawyer's point of view

A couple quick points, without being too redundant. First off the fact that there are so many points and so much intelligent discussion is fantastic. Many detractors have focused on somewhat minor technical points, like whether she was hacked or not hacked, the digits/bits in an IP addy, etc. In the legal sense it's far more crucial to assert injuries and causation than to demonstrate the technical merits, at least at this stage in the case. Some of the posters here could make a pretty penny as an expert technical witness in the case!

Nonetheless, the theories presented are sound. It is worth noting that companies often use their ability to litigate to impugn the common man, who cannot traditionally muster the defense fund of the big business. That is why, more than any specific argument, this case is so important. It represents an effort to stop legal intimidation on the RIAA's behalf, and I applaud that effort.

One last point. It is my intention to bring about a shift in cyberlaw thinking. Lawyers and lawmakers alike fail to realize that technology doesn't totally shift the paradigm. Snooping on Ms. Andersen's computer is no different than snooping on her mail or telephone conversations. Just because it's easier and more anonymous online doesn't require new laws or new causes of action.

Oh yes, in response to some recent posts: 14,000 individual suits would not necessarily be greater than one class action, as RIAA would move to consolidate them. And indeed, support your congressman who proposes legislation with fair use, unlike the DCMA which makes several fair uses illegal.

Good luck Ms. Andersen! (anyone else find it funny that she was d/ling gangsta rap at 4am? Her lawyer knows exactly what she is doing :)

Anonymous said...

Invasion of privacy is one thing, but illegally downloading music, whether it was done by her or her daughter, is another thing. I do it, everyone does it, but its stealing, you can't call it anything else.

Actually, I usually call it "copyright infringement", precisely because "stealing" refers to depriving someone of their property.

In the case of P2P music filesharing, it's even doubtful whether the activity is depriving record companies of revenue, since increased file sharing has correlated with increased record company profits.

Anonymous said...

14,000 individual suits would not necessarily be greater than one class action, as RIAA would move to consolidate them.

Thank you for the clarification.

Optimus said...

This is awesome. The laws which she alleges (and we know) that the RIAA broke have mandatory jail sentences. The RIAA will get jail time if she is successful.

This has made my day bright! =^)

Kodack said...

Power to the people!

It's about time we got this whole thing in a court room, so that our peers can send a message to the RIAA telling them what we think about their illegal war on consumers.

I can't believe they retained a collection agency to process settlements.

Buy used music. The record companies don't get squat for it.

Anonymous said...

I got bad news for all of you. In the last few years Congress has given the upperhand to big businesses. Capitalism trumps freedom --believe it, its happening. It will be a miracle if she prevails.

Mr. Priapus said...

Good luck Ms. Anderson and Mr. Lybeck. Get some!

Joshua Peterson said...

I think the fact remains that the RIAA is expecting people to pay hundreds of dollars for a song worth no more than a buck or two.

This activity might motivate people to download music legally, but even in the world of legal music downloading the RIAA wants people to pay $3 or $4 per song.

As far as I'm concerned, everybody should download music from P2P just to knock RIAA off the map.

One of the things the RIAA is going to have to accept is the fact that you can't erase illegal file sharing. You can't stop it, even for a split second. And while there is P2P, there are also several other formats in which music is distributed, none of which will see the distribution of the format end.

The RIAA and every other organization has to come to an understanding with the public. These are nothing more than organizations. It's not like they run the USA. And in order to get any effective movement towards legal downloading, the RIAA and many other organizations have to learn where their authority lies. They do not have any legal or consitutional right to dictate the American public, especially through illegal activities.

Companies like MediaSentry or SafeNet need to have formal lawsuits filed against them for violating Americans' rights to privacy and due process. By illegally gathering information about an individual, these companies are infringing our right to privacy and our right to be treated with respect.

If I were this lady, I would add further charges of slander and harassment to the suit for the issues regarding these companies not leaving her alone and publicly humiliating her.

Regardless of who these businesses think they are, they are not above the law. And it's time that we, as consumers, stand up and put them in their place.

Anonymous said...

finally they put those CRIMINALS on trail.
So you see, even with a 3 piece suite and a tie, they be gangsters.

It's theft and bullying, and it's all out in the open, for everybody to see.

This is what the justice system has become.

RIAA and all the music publishers are all criminals, plain and simple.

free ipod nano said...

Hope she wins, but I doubt it as they're too powerful. :(

Anonymous said...

"also playing the disabled card is nothing but showboating"

Actually it will help in proving that the RIAA's actions caused physical harm to the defendant, which helps inflate a decision in regards to punitive and actual damages.

It's hard to show that this activity would physically harm an able bodied man, but a "retired feeble old lady? The shock could have killed her!!!"

See the difference? ;)

Anonymous said...

Hope she wins ...
If she need donations I am ready to donate $10-20 .
I think a lot people do.

Anonymous said...

go, you!

Anonymous said...

Good for her! I hope she ties them up to the back of her wheelchair and drags them through the mud!

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget about the babysitter or the babysitter's boyfriend as a possible "man behind the curtain" downloading the music.

Anonymous said...

Did we effectively throw out the thought that the 8 year old daughter might have a crush on 50 cent?

Anonymous said...

First things first. To the people who say maybe the little gir, babysitter, blah blah.. Fact is they found no songs on the computer... No file sharing program. Not a thing. Fact is that the RIAA is hacking into computer is wrong. And they should be sued for doing so.

Anonymous said...

f the riaa

Anonymous said...

http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/61e7/

Yoda B said...

She is going to loose. She has a horrible lawyer!

I feel sorry for her - first she was duped by the RIAA, now by this lawyer.

As someone with a technical background I can tell you that almost every paragraph in the lawsuit is full of errors. Even if she has a real case, it's going to be drowned out of existance by this.


I love when the mentally retarded post comments on the internet.

Yoda

Anonymous said...

I think she has a good case and all, but really in our society nowadays, huge companies have more power. There isn't really a way for her to win the case, especially if the jury just bases their decision on the fact that the RIAA has a lot of power. You can't really take them down, all you need to do is develop better p2p software. I would think that is the only real way to fight back ;)

Anonymous said...

"So you see, even with a 3 piece suite and a tie, they be gangsters."


I have a three piece suite too. It's leather. With a recliner.

Richard said...

Guess none of you like music? The RIAA pays my bills and feeds my family, assholes.
# posted by Anonymous : 8:22 PM


Way to reinforce your organizations's esteemed opinion of us as 'assholes', you bloody rag. Its past time we disposed of you.

Guess none of us like music? As if you're the exclusive source? Guess you invented the violin, too. Does my handmade Stradivari copy somehow deprive his children of food as well? Or yours? (Hint - It does if you don't own me!) Does blowing my horn or jamming on my axe for free somehow reduce your standard of living? (I hope so!)

In truth, the RIAA and its recording industry members are defeating themselves by showing us that they have been creating new stars and pop groups from a formula, and that anyone, even a pretty, dumb, blonde, teenage girl can sing a song and make some people happy. So I often choose to listen to the people I know play live, or even sing karaoke, badly, more than I listen to recordings, even if it is imperfect, because music is a communication tool, and it works whether its studio mastered or spontaneous.

Pardon my lack of grace, but F#CK the RIAA!!! That includes you, Mr. Anonymous at 8:22 PM. You are obsolete. Please find a meaningful job; the world could use more double cheesburgers.

PS. It might suck but its FREE: my name links to a song I made a few years back. Its a 6MB download, but at least one label pro has called it 'worth the download'. Judge for yourself. Also check out 'Brave the Fire' for a fresh band with my friend Steve's unique vocalizations...

Anonymous said...

Maybe if the greedy corporate pigs in the recording industry would focus less on making tons of money, pimping "artists" with one or two good songs and a C.D. full shit and overcharging for c.d's people might actually buy more and download less. i hope she wins and the RIAA gets f**ked

Anonymous said...

FUCK THE RIAA!

Anonymous said...

If anyone works at the RIAA, and has root access to any of their databases, please, PLEASE type rm -r /

PLEASE.

Anonymous said...

You go lady! It's time someone stood up to these bullies!

Anonymous said...

You may want to look at the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act passed by the Federal government. It has a 1 year statute of limitation and a $1,000.00 fine per violation but it has unlimited attorneys fees and costs. It is my understanding that this could be used against the people that contacted her only and could include the attorneys of the firm that sued her. If they violated the act. It has been suggested to me that most of the malpractice insurance for attorneys may not cover this type of claim because it is considered an intentional act as appose to a negligent act. It is my understanding that in the event of a judgment there is a limiting factor of a percentage of the net worth of the defendant. But that is per suit. At a 1% limit per suit and one hundred different suits you own the company or the law firm.

Anonymous said...

Cool, but this is just a small hole into the world of info invasion. CIA, FBI and many other orginizations have been doing it for years without getting caught. I'm not paranoid but too many people have turned the other cheek when it comes to government issues and invasion of privacy. But now music companies, MUSIC COMPANIES are using this very same method to get innocent people charged with fake acts. I hope this article will open people eyes into the bigger and badder bellie of the beast.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that anything will come of this at all.

I ultimately suspect that she did have file-sharing software on her computer, and that they used that software to see what was being shared on her machine. The claims that someone admitted that they had illegally hacked into her computer and admitting that the whole thing was designed to generate cash will never, ever stand up in court...it's going to be a "he said, she said" argument.

The brief is really not very good, and uses inaccurate technical jargon, such as IPA instead of IP address, which is a stunning error. It is very difficult to believe that has any technical expertise at all, and offered no independent opinions that file sharing software had never been installed on the computer. Very sloppy. Furthermore, if her IP and MAC address had indeed been spoofed, the RIAA could legitimately withdraw the lawsuit.

As for the matter of a "disabled single mother", well, shame on everyone for playing this card. This is probably the only thing that prompted these ambulance chasers to take the case...if the case has no merit, make the plaintiff look as pitiful as possible. I am quite certain that the RIAA knew she was disabled before filing the suit.

Furthermore, the firm that represents Ms. Andersen does not look at first glance to be a good choice to represent her. The law firm's own website indicates that: "Our firm handles legal matters in the following practice areas: Litigation, Professional Liability, Health Care, Products Liability, Construction Disputes, Insurance Law, Employment and Employer Liability, Environmental, Personal Injury, Commercial Law, Real Estate, Dissolution and Family Law, Guardianship, Probate and Trust Administration, Estate and Trust Planning, Elder Law, Adoption and Estate and Gift Tax." No expertise in technology listed at all. To me, that does not bode well, on what will ultimately end up on what was on, or not on Ms. Andersen's computer.

I am quite disappointed at all of the folks out there who actually believe that it is their right to share copyrighted music files. It is stealing, plain and simple. No question at all about it. People’s comments about “Metallica and their millions of dollars” and music shaping society are really juvenile, and nothing more than an attempt to justify theft. Nothing more. Some people make millions, and work hard for it, but the truth is that most artists struggle to make ends meet, and they should be paid for their work.

I agree that the RIAA is heavy handed, and don't agree with all of their methods, but the fact is that most of the folks that they have been targeting have been guilty...with thousands of downloaded files on their computers, an no one brought up illegal hacking charges on the RIAA at that point. If they had been hacking into user's computers illegally, someone would have already tried this argument since it would seriously damage the RIAA case. If the evidence of illegal file sharing were thrown out, due to an illegal search on the user’s computer, there would be no case.

This case ultimately will be a bad choice to pin hopes of bringing the RIAA down...it's just too suspect.

Anonymous said...

"the riaa pays my bills-assholes."

There's a kind of inversion, you pay the RIAA bills, asshole. Maybe you didn't guess, but RIAA is not a philanthropic association. Or, if you think it is, it's a philanthropic association that refuses to develop legal MP3 downloading, and prefers to spend its money on annoying everybody. How intelligent ! it's just a MAFIA, which tries to defend its territory, not hesitating on using strong means.

Anonymous said...

Vous devez résister, ils utilisent l'intimidation pour vous forcer à payer. Protéger votre vie privé, c'est précieux.

Anonymous said...

Quote: "...burden is on the plaintiff to protect their own connection and make sure that no one is using it for "illegal activities." "

I suspect this may be a sticking point in many cases like this. This would certainly be the kind of thing that would protect an ISP from being liable for any activities taking place using their networks, so I can definitely see this being thrown into the ring to try and attach responsibility to Ms Anderson.

So because you leave your house unlocked, anyone can go into your house and take whatever they want? False. As soon as you connect to another persons computer without their consent you have committed an illegal act (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. § 1030)

Pichu0102 said...

Most likely, she will lose, due to the government placing a judge that will rule against her so they can support big business and screw the little guy. Sad, but true.

barryg said...

I have a question for the more more technically learned than my self. If I am running an ipspoofing program while I am downloading files illegaly does an innocent person get charged with downloading? The innocent person being the actual owner of the ip address I have spoofed or actually shown to the world as my own.

Anonymous said...

Why a jury trial? The american public is too stupid to understand the issues involved. And don't forget RIAA will be able to veto any potential jurror who has an IQ over 80.

I strongly support this woman's case, but she'd be better off with a bench trial.

DrLouis said...

I don't know if it's been said before but there is a heavy social price to pay for all the legal proceedings the RIAA has engaged. And ironically (or not, it depends), the harm done is far worse than the harm averted.

And for some reason the whole legal establishment has hidden it's head in the sand believing it can't do wrong, letting the RIAA continue unabated.

Well the whole point is that these lawsuits feel wrong, they look wrong, hell, they are wrong. Hopefully this countersuit will go a long way to take the legal establishment out of bed with the RIAA and reeastablish some sort of equilibrium: a poor man should stand as good a chance to win as a rich man. Anything less than that and the legal system is unfair. It's already failed the common interest by letting corporations intimidate thousands for frivolous reasons ...

Richard said...

Sharing copyrighted files is stealing, plain and simple

???

I guess you never lent a friend a CD or DVD, or VHS tape. When a friend asks you for a favor, you tell them to go buy it themselves, right? OK, I've oversimplified, but you did it first. Stealing is depriving someone of property. Downloading a song is depriving a corporation of their rights to one copy of a song. What a heinous crime.

And I agree artists need to be compensated. But compensating artists through the RIAA is like sending money to starving kids in Africa, when 80% of it goes toward organization and administrative costs. I'd rather go see a local band live, and buy them a beer, than pay someone who's screwing them $10 to give them $1.

Anonymous said...

Guess none of you like music? The RIAA pays my bills and feeds my family, assholes
Whoopie. The RIAA aren't the be-all and end-all of Music. I'm British. The RIAA can go and do rude things to themselves for all I care.

I hope she sets precident, because then maybe the RIAA will finally shut up and be productive in the music industry, instead of paying the bills of whiners like yourself.

right_to_share said...

Ma 2 bobs worth (scottish saying)

for the guy that typed the
rm -r, rm -R would work alot better :)

ip address is made up of what you all say but its not the ip address they use as anyone can have the same address in a network ie 192.168.0.1 they just cant be on at the same time.
its the MAC address such as 00:09:F3:00:E4:CD as the first so many bits are burnt into the card and only the last bits can be changed (hard but possible)but if she has a wireless router then they would only have the routers address and the ISPs IP that was allocated to her at that time if it is a decant router then it could have been anyone within a 1500m radius of her house as for copyright infringement, every body has the right to backup anything they legaly own so if i was her i would buy the cd second hand so they dont get any money off her then take them to the cleaners.
1)they need to prove the file she downloaded if she did was the actual file it says it was
2)the file would need to be complete if it was stopped short then it wont play, therefore useless.
3)for them to prove the file contents, they would have to download it solely from her computer therefore admitting guilt of accessing her computer.

if she wants to add more she could also add the record compannies are breaking the laws by adding copy protection into there music or software (what ever) as the end user has the right to back it up and they are denying it to us

a big good luck with the case

but if she wins she should go public as it will be brushed under the carpet and the goal posts will be moved so the next time they try it it works in the big companies favour

excuse the spelling

Anonymous said...

if she wins she should go public
If she wins I can almost guarantee that she'd be subject to a gagging order.

Anonymous said...

I have to say, the lawyers sound like they know nothing about tech related stuff, and between the Patriot Act, the DMCA, and the dozens of other twisted laws that the RIAA/MPAA have been lobbied for will be enough to threaten her into a settlement. I am sure her lawyers will be more than happy with this sort of outcome - probably what they're looking for in the first place.

And for those of you who think that the RIAA has anything to do with music, take this Britney Spears CD out of there and get on Limewire and download illegally "Kind of Blue" by Miles Davis or "Giant Steps" by John Coltrane - they won't mind, they're both dead - this is what is called music.

People who go the "you don't like music 'cause you don't support the RIAA" make me laugh, or puke... depending...

Since when Music needs the RIAA? Sorry to break the news to you... but it's the other way around.

Anonymous said...

All I can say is...finally!
In regards to the mediaSentry thing for what I can gather is that they basically scan traffic through the network nodes on a P2P application that facilitate a connection to whatever file. From my understanding mediasentry is basically a powerful hardware driven "Bot" that crawls the net looking for machines that communicate with the above mentioned network nodes, to summarily make a connection and upload/download,etc.
All the same I find her claim somewhat "dubious" as to any secret installation(s) not to mention that
mediasentry is a server app as far as my understanding serves me.
Now on the otherhand with the "gangster rap"(hehehehe)thing, what I think needs to be investigated is
the legality behind sniffing peoples traffic to the "gangster rap" length...not saying she did it, I don't think she did anyway, but the quintessential how does it work?
Not to long ago there was a story in Florida about people beating all these traffic tickets because some tech-savy people were asking about how the radar gun actually collects data, fault ratio's, the software used in the radar gun, etc. The police departments refuse to divulge this information, and so those people were cleared of any wrong-doing. And I find it odd that I have YET to see any sort white-paper or detailed technical description of how mediasentry collects information. If what they are doing is packet-sniffing on some
intrusive level then I am surprised a case hasn't been brought up about that in itself. Would you like someone sniffing your packets?
Or would you like to know that some third party that has nothing to do with you(yet...)has Bots snooping the server you connect to to get receive/send your e-mail?

It boggles the mind...

Anonymous said...

If anyone works at the RIAA, and has root access to any of their databases, please, PLEASE type rm -r /

PLEASE.


you presume they use linux... which i doubt.

Anonymous said...

It's funny how on a lower level, a judge would throw out a frivolous lawsuit, but not this.
The RIAA is not only threatening people with expenses, but it's process is similar to a District Attorney's technique. If you KNOW, you didn't download anything, don't pay. If you have a dirty conscience, and would rather take the lower charge (in this case, the lower of settlement or fullblown penalty), then you settle.
The RIAA is so blatantly abusive, it's not even funny. Their saving grace is the fact that government officials are willing to fudge their constituents' rights for some payola.

Anonymous said...

What I want will never happen.....I want the rule against the RIAA to repay all the money that they have stolen (both by the coersion method) and by artifically raising the prices of cd's in full by having all of their profits (and 90% of the ceo and boards salaries and bonusus) go to those that have been victimized by the RIAA or that have bought cd's (proof of purchase is the actual cd, no reciept needed) That will never happen due to the law and politicians being bought by the RIAA.

Anonymous said...

Here's a question from a dummy...doesn't your ISP (the numbers xxx.xxx.xxx) change each time you connect to the internet due to the limited number of space on each server? If that's the case, then if I have one isp now, and can have another one later today, than tell me how it can be considered an exact science that I can identify a computer user from the isp of some anonymous person connected to a file sharing program? Through the cooperation of the ISP (verizon, sbc, comcast, etc.)? and do they have a right to give up that information to 3rd parties that do not include legal authorities?

just something to think about.

Anonymous said...

The fact that everyone feels the need to post anonymously demonstrates how afraid the average person is of this mafia. The RIAA is nothing but an amateur businessman wrapped in cheap mafia garb. They can't compete so their grasping at withering straws waiting to die. We made fun of them everyday in MBA school.

Justin said...

26. Ms. Andersen regularly used her personal computer to communicate with friends and family across the country and for interstate e-commerce. Ms. Andersen had password protection and security in place to protect her computer and personal files from access by others.

I like this part, she has password protection, Question for you? If you walk down mainstreet at 4:00am and check to see if the doors are locked you've done nothing illegal its only when you actually walk in the unlocked door that you've commited breaking an entering and tresspassing. Same goes for computers You can port scan all day and you could check and see if there was a password. But the second you actually do something on/to/with someone's pc you've broken the law. Just because they don't have a password doesn't mean your free to tamper, steal or do what ever you please to thier system. Just like if a store was unlocked you don't have the right to walk in and steal thier goods.

I'm personally sick of the RIAA and its ongoing battle. To the point I'll never buy a record agian, and just a little thought for those out there. If you own a CD you have a legal right to backup that CD, if your choice of backup is MP3 then there is nothing illegal about that. Also if you had to download that MP3 there is still nothing illegal about that cause you own a copy of the work in question.

Well I had over $500 worth of CD's stolen, Mr. RIAA please prove that the mp3's in question are not backups of those stolen disc's. Please because i'm innocent till you can prove i never owned the CD's that I have a police report saying were stolen.

By sharing files I don't think a person is doing anything illegal its the person downloading the work they don't have a right to that is breaking the law.

Anonymous said...

All the best Miss Andersen.
Hope that you blast those buggers straight down to hell.

Anonymous said...

How about people just not pirating music? SHOCK HORROR, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Bill Johnston said...

all the idiots that post negativity towards this lady and her lawyers are apart of the RIAA. LMFAO, you testicles are going down. The RIAA, GW Bush, and the rest of his cronys should be ashamed of themselves for talking our basic freedoms and rights. You should be voting against every senator, every person in the current federal system. One way or another your civil liberties are being taken away by GW and the RIAA. Dont let these over paid, under worked idiots take your rights away any longer!!!

SPACEMAN said...

YOU MUST WIN< THIS IS FOIR THE PEOPLE !!

Anonymous said...

"How about people just not pirating music? SHOCK HORROR, if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

Umm - thats the whole argument mate. She claims (to be proven in court) to have done nothing wrong, but she sure has something to worry about!

Anonymous said...

Two thoughts:

1) I agree with this woman that the actions taken by the RIAA are inappropriately invasive. If her allegations are true, she ought to win. She probably won't, however, because the complaint is poorly written, and the RIAA has the some of best lawyers in the country.

2) Whoever said that artists are the only people who make music is full of crap. A composer writes the song, then someone else arranges it, then there are tons of people in the studio who record it, then others mix it, then others master it, then others print it, then others draw cover art, then others assemble it, then others label it, then others distribute it, then others sell it.

The point is: there are lots of people involved in the business part of the music business. We all know that Britney Spears doesn't do much for her business, but fyi, neither do your favorite "street" artists.

The reason file-sharing is illegal is because it is STEALING. What if someone made you do all the work you do at your job, then didn't pay you for it?

Anonymous said...

All the comments have already said it, but i fear that we are all at the mercy of big business if they choose to sue us. Under our court system, the guy with the most bucks almost surely wins. Unless some well healed organization backs up the defendant, the defendant is going to pay one way or the other

Anonymous said...

ahoy...

Congrats and i do seriously hope she'll have success w. this lawsuit. The DMCA gave the lobbying industry too much power at hand.

Even if she IS disabled, she has the right to run P2P clients. Running a P2P client dosent mean you do an illegal thing. It is more and more used to defray bandwith costs and increase availability of certain files that are LEGALLY shared, like public broadcasts in TV/radio for shows you've missed (i used to DL my ENTERPRISE episodes, cos i was jobbing in the timeframe of broadcast). Best example is the new-gen sci-fi series BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. It ran half a year earlier in the U.K. than in the USA, but thx to hypersharing systems like BITTORRENT it created a solid fan-base even BEFORE it was broadcasted in the USA - something every TV network is hoping for.

RIAA/MPAA have to realize that they effectively lost the technological race. Give it a couple more years, and P2P networks that are VPN tunneled, high level encrypted that shares MD5 hashed files, randomized through several 'gateways' is no way to find out where something comes from and goes to.

I for myself have quit seening the BS on mass-media TV or mass-media radio, i DL/listen my music from LEGAL sites like www.DI.FM or www.djmixes2k.com (which uses bittorrent p2p to defray bandwith costs!) and occasionally watch HBO/SHOWTIME and PBS/DISCOVERY and thats it.

i wish you good luck lady, i know its doable - the EFF sued sucessfully the CIA for some major screwups the CIA did vs a smaller corp in austin,TX back in mid-90's.

cheers
@

Anonymous said...

It's about time someone is willing to stick up for our privacy rights! I'm talking, of course, about the lawyer that took the case. I hope for all our sakes, that he is good enough to win this one. We all know the money that the other side will throw at this one. Maybe we can start a campaign to gather names against these spies! After all, America is about majority, right?

Anonymous said...

standard disclaimer: i am not a lawyer. this is not legal advice. i do have court experience. i am still not a lawyer. i don't even play one on tv.

that said, i'm.. i've got issues with the counterclaim. yeah, that sounds about right. first of all, how can laches apply? couldn't; abuse of process is the strongest, because upon discovery of the proper defendant, the case is to be amended and/or refiled against the proper defendant.
secondly, terming it a debt is probably about the worst idea possible. go read fdcpa; this is fed venue. in order to call it deceptive debt collection, there has to be an underlying personal expense claimed. judgments from lawsuits are not personal expense as generally accepted, especially not lawsuits that have never been filed. it's plain ordinary extortion and blackmail. speaking of which; no blackmail charge?
also, why not invoke federal rico? i can't see a reason to not cite fed along with wa state rico here, especially if the case is strong enough to support the state rico claims.

but hey, just my $0.02. and i am not a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

riaa ain't nothing but some f-kin greedy bastards! I hope the will lost this case and people learn to fight back!

Anonymous said...

HELL YES! Sue those sons of witches!

She has a fairly solid case, the RIAA is kinda screwed not matter what the jury is:

1)Technology idiots who are terrified of getting "haxx0red" (they saw it somewhere randomly and don't know that it means hacked, they're that stupid)

2)Technology averages who aren't quite sure what's right and what's not, but know enough to hate the RIAA

3)Techno-wizs who HATE the RIAA and know that while the allegations might not be dead on, they're close enough to the real thing.

DEATH TO RIAA!

Anonymous said...

I'm not a lawyer either, but I am currently a 2nd year law school student. One thing that hit me about our justice system is just how many flaws and loopholes it has. It's as if they're designed to be taken advantage of by certain exploiters.
Two in particular concern this case.

1. The claims amount for a trial with jury should be lowered. All these trials without juries are ridiculous. The so called "secret trials" shouldn't happen in any democratic country.

2. There should be a limit of how many lawsuits that a particular entity/litigator can file in a given period of time. The RIAA, or any other organization, shouldn't be able to sue that many people at once. It clogs up our system and deprive already sparse resources from more legimate proceedings.

Anonymous said...

The RIAA and others are whats going to make this country go down the drain.

Anonymous said...

F*CK THE RECORD COMPANIES, and there spys, I download and UPLOAD, And they'll wait along time to see any money,If they catch me, since I don't have any money,Rocks don't bleed, Long live the trackers

pmzipko said...

Awsome, glad to see someone fighting back.

I just had an FBI agent from Pittsburgh come to my university for a seminar on how the FBI uses computer forensics. He was talking about a lot of the same things coming up in this investigation.

Anonymous said...

As for whiny recording artists; when i see them eating romen noodles and living in a trailer park I might back them up a bit.

Anonymous said...

MediaSentry actively admits that they collect information about file sharing, but by all logical standards they don't do this illegally;

That all depends on how far they went. It is worth noting that not too long ago, the recording industry lobbied congress to try to get a law passed that would explicitly ALLOW them to break into, and even disable, suspected pirate's computers, and that would explicitly make them immune from any criminal or civil liability under computer crime laws for doing so.

or they made fraudulent statements about breaking into her computer and having evidence against her (also illegal)

It was my understanding that it was the collection agency that may have made those statements to her? If so, making such fraudulent statements or threats in order to collect a debt could constitute a violation of the federal Fair Debts Collections Practices Act, which provides for civil penalties and attorney's fees. Given that this is a federal case already, I am surprised that this federal law was not even mentioned in the pleadings.

Anonymous said...

This is a publicity campaign and not a legal or technical one. Lets face it, all MediaSentry has to do is join a P2P network and then search for any RIAA artist. Then "Ilegally" initiate a download from anyone on that P2P network. This will yield a unique username and current IP address.

Then they can find out which IP address belongs to which ISP. They "Batch" all of these by major ISP and then threaten to bring or bring an initial lawsuit against the ISP to force them to provide the customer information associated with that IP address for that date and time.

Then they send that customer information to a collection agency which bullies most people into thinking they actually may have a case against them even though I believe there is no precedence in a case like this.

So I guess I could say that I am little jealous of this woman because if she pressed her countersuit, she could bring the RIAA and MediaSentry to their knees.

Because they are as guilty as everyone of the people they have brought these claims against.

If your on the MediaSentry hit list and you have a brother or cousin or uncle Vinny that's even a two bit attorney, Counter sue these guys for everything they are worth.

P.S. It's still theft!

Anonymous said...

I wish to remain anonymous for now, but I had to say this...

Fighting back against the RIAA IS POSSIBLE. I have done it before, about 10 years ago during the first few test cases against digitizing media. I owned several CDs that I encoded to several audio formats that were available in '96 (took me a while to encode). My servers were surreptitiously hacked about 3 months into my testing of various codecs to determine the best quality to bitrate per format for a client that was interested in doing internet broadcasting of various media. This hack happened 2 days after I quit that job in frustration of lack of adequite pay for my abilities.This of course, combined with a new bind-hole-of-the-day exploit led to the servers being hacked.

Needless to say, within days of this hack (in which the perpretrator found and moved my sample recordings to the homepage of the client's website) on my employer's servers the RIAA sent in not the police, not the FBI, but thier own agents to "seize" the servers. To this date I have yet to see the supposed warrant or get verification that ANY police or federal agent's had been present at the "raid" of my employer.

Well, long story short, I retained a friend of mine's father, who happened to be a pretty good lawyer. He was quite outraged and helped me to defeat the RIAA at minimal cost (still in the thousands).

Long story short, the RIAA threatened with circumstantial evidince and radical insiuations and accusations. I (and my lawyer) fought back. We forced the RIAA into a "sweep it under the rug if you agree not to commit piracy" for a period of 7 years. How did we force it? Well, under the law, unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were the person sitting at the keyboard operating the computer that the piracy was traced to, then they have no case. That takes pictures, or proof that the machine has not been breached (which thier curent tactics of B&E kind of prove as not true) AND that the person being sued is the SOLE user of said machine.

So fight back! It IS possible, and likely with a smart legal counsel to WIN against the RIAA and thier 10 year old tactics.

p.s. Mine and two other cases that were "test cases" as thier lawyer called them "off the record", that were settled without even a peep of protest. This is what started them on the track of prosecuting anyone they could. I did my part in 96 to help stop it. Now it's time for everyone else with a brain to fight back and say "Enough is enough!"

Anonymous said...


Guess none of you like music? The RIAA pays my bills and feeds my family, assholes.


I hope you and your family starve to death when this case is over.

And your music sucks too.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it was just a matter of them getting her IP from a file transfer. The counterclaim alleges that they first identified her IP, and THEN allegedly illegally accessed her computer through "illegal acts of subterfuge".

If, for example, MediaSentry used some non-standard means (like spyware) to remotely inspect her computer and inventory all of the files on her hard drive (even the non-shared ones), in order to identify any unlawful copies and be able to calculate full damages, I can see where her claims might have some merit.

It is worth noting that an attempt to force several Netherlands ISPs to release the identity of subscribers allegedly involved in piracy was recently thrown out of court by a Dutch judge, mainly based on the allegedly irregular investigation methods being used by MediaSentry -

http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=9152

According to the ISPs lawyer - "The data was obtained though irregular means..." As the court stated, MediaSentry could have accessed computer hard disks containing shared folders holding files belonging to all subscribers, including unconnected users, and thus violated their privacy.

I'm not sure exactly what they were doing, but secretly accessing the hard drive of a computer when it is not connected to a P2P network sounds pretty irregular to me!

Perhaps her attorney can use the Dutch case to support her case.

Also, I found a potential bonanza for her - reports of MediaSentry allegedly reporting "false positives", specifically, reporting infringement from IP addresses which were not in use! -

http://seclists.org/lists/fulldisclosure/2005/Jan/0085.html
and
http://seclists.org/lists/fulldisclosure/2005/Jan/0434.html

and even a letter from a copyright owner which stated that there was a problem with "our anti-piracy vendor's system" which caused some notices to be sent in error! -

http://seclists.org/lists/fulldisclosure/2005/Jan/0483.html

Her attorney should be able to E-MAIL these folks, and get some nice evidence regarding the "accuracy" of their reporting system!

Anonymous said...

For all those so called technical experts who suggest that there are errors in the counter claim:

- IPA is completely correct; it stands for Internet Protocol Address. That most us, technical savy guys, say IP address just shows we are not very savy with language. Why use a partly acronym?

- The nine digit code is correct IN HER CASE I guess. It's besides the point how many IPA's there are or how they can be represented. She just claims that she is identified by a nine digit code.

Ray Beckerman said...

Hi Folks,

I know emotions run deep against the RIAA, but please: no profanity in the comments.

Thanks for writing in, and for your support.

Best regards,

Ray

Anonymous said...

We should go on to the end. We should defend our privacy, whatever the cost may be. We should fight in Kazaa, we should fight in BitTorrent, we should fight in eDonkey, and in eMule. We should fight in Blogger.com. We shall never surrender! and even if, which I can't for a moment beleive, this network or a large part of it is subjugated to RIAA's hands, the new totally encrypted FreeNet will raise and bring the liberation to the good old Web.

DEATH TO RAPING INTIMIDATORS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA!

Anonymous said...

but she deserves it, she was downloading rap!

Woland said...

"Guess none of you like music? The RIAA pays my bills and feeds my family, assholes"

1) Loving music has nothing to do with wishing RIA to drop dead.
2) Paying RIA is like giving money to the pimp instad of to the protitute.(Dear artists, sorry for the comparison, but you are being used).
3) If RIA pays your bills, then you are a pimp, or worse.

AberrantAngel said...

Invasion of privacy is one thing, but illegally downloading music, whether it was done by her or her daughter, is another thing. I do it, everyone does it, but its stealing, you can't call it anything else.On the contrary, STEALING is when you take something from someone... Like if you take my pants, I am pantsless.. you have STOLEN my pants. However, if you make an exact replica of my pants, my pants have not been stolen. I still have them. You have COPIED my pants.

Same goes for music. When people download a song, the original song doesn't disappear.

Sure, its a dollar or so less in the pockets of those who make more in a month than I'll probably see in three years, but if the music is that popular people will see them live in concert, people will buy their CD's and DVD's and clothing, coffee mugs, mousepands and other swag. They'll get their smegging dollar regardless of the people herassed by the RIAA.

Anonymous said...

Nitr0g3N said...
"This case is not about the 41 year old woman. It's about her 13 year old pirate daughter."

Read the counter claim and especially the line that says:
"5. Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter"

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 322   Newer› Newest»